Posted on 01/12/2008 11:15:32 AM PST by Salvation
If someone offers up a constitutional amendment, I’ll support it, providing it’s properly worded and treats all persons equally before the law. But that’s only useful as a means to clarify for those who can’t read the plain meaning of words. Our Constitution already contains the provisions to protect the unborn in the Preamble and the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. All we lack is the political will in all three co-equal branches of government to enforce it.
What the heck is THAT supposed to mean? Are you serious about abortion or just a sneering ideologue?
IOW, all you can do is spout slogans.
Overturning Roe is the first step to the protection of unborn children - which is so limited currently by the Courts. I get the idea that part of the pride that Senator Thompson takes in helping get John Roberts approved in the SCOTUS is because of this law.
The false designation of not-person is in the Roe decision as is the “right” to privacy. Overturning Roe overturns any supposed “right” to abortion and would have to acknowledge the false premise of a right to privacy (that allows unlimited abortion until “viability” and some limits by the State afterward).
Somehow, we’ll still have to deal with Doe vs. Bolton and PP v. Casey. These two will be considered, even if there were an amendment.
Each State has discretion between first degree murder, manslaughter and self-defense. In the same way, the States will regulate abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancies and life of the mother. These are decisions that belong to the State, according to the Constitution.
The “problem” with the Platform is that it proposes several Constitutional amendments that have little or no chance of passing and which will distract from the fight in the Supreme Court.
Overturning Roe on the basis on the personhood of the unborn necessarily outlaws abortion everywhere in the country.
The “problem” with those who disagree with the platform is that they refuse to address the personhood of the unborn.
Are the unborn persons?
Of course.
Do you make any other point?
Okay. We’ve established that.
So, does the Fourteenth Amendment protection of innocent persons then bind all three branches of government to the protection of the lives of all persons, on all territory of the United States, as part of their sworn duty?
Yes.
Are you getting to a point here, or are you just repeating your argument in yet another way?
You do realize that restating the exact same point over and over doesn't advance your argument, don't you?
And since you've found more time to post, perhaps we can get back to the question of what EXACTLY a president can do to end abortion.
Whatever is within his sworn duty, and his powers as president.
IOW, you have absolutely no clue. And this is just an exercise in futility.
Seriously, if you can't answer that simple question, how are we to take you seriously?
I just got in, EV. I am reading your posts now. Thank you.
Thanks, Ev, but that is not Duncan Hunter’s position. Here is Hunter’s:
LAST OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME AN ORIGINAL COSPONSOR OF THE “RIGHT TO LIFE ACT”
Dear Colleague:
Every year, over a million innocent babies are intentionally killed by an abortion. This represents nearly 3,000 times a day that an unborn child is taken from its mother’s womb prematurely and denied the opportunity to live. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to our Constitution clearly states that no State shall “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.” I wholeheartedly believe that these constitutional rights should include our country’s unborn children.
As you know, in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court refused to determine when human life begins and therefore found nothing to indicate that the unborn are persons protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. In the decision, however, the Court did concede that, “If the suggestion of personhood is established, the appellants’ case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” Considering Congress has the constitutional authority to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment, coupled with the fact that the Court admitted that if personhood were to be established, the unborn would be protected, it can be determined that we have the authority to determine when life begins.
It is for this reason that I am reintroducing the Right to Life Act, which had over 100 cosponsors in the 109th Congress, on January 22nd. This legislation does what the Supreme Court refused to do and recognizes the personhood of the unborn for the purpose of enforcing four important provisions in the Constitution: 1) The due process clause (Sec. 1) of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from depriving any person of life; 2) Sec. 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which gives Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this amendment; 3) The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which concurrently prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life; and 4) Article 1, Section 8, which gives Congress the power to make laws necessary and proper to enforce all powers in the Constitution.
The Right to Life Act will protect millions of unborn children by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn, thereby effectively overturning Roe v. Wade. To become an original cosponsor of this important legislation, please contact Michael Harrison in my office at x55672 or at michael.harrison@mail.house.gov, by 12:00 noon on Monday, January 22nd.
Sincerely,
Duncan Hunter
Member of Congress
Current Cosponsors: C. Smith, Hayes, G. Davis, McCaul, Franks, T. Johnson, McMorris, Sessions, Cannon, Wamp, Westmoreland, Renzi, Norwood, H. Rogers, J. Wilson, Boustany, Bishop, G. Miller, Herger, Alexander, Manzullo, Cubin, J. Davis, Inglis, McCotter, L. Davis, Forbes, Souder, R. Hall, Musgrave, Pickering, Chabot, Boozman, S. Johnson, Conaway, Bartlett, D. Davis, Tiahrt, Myrick, Fortuno, Akin, Dootlittle, Gingrey, LaHood, Hoekstra, Adrian Smith, Foxx, Sali, R. Lewis, Terry, Pitts, Tancredo
I agree with you.
Here is the Right to Life Amendment that Duncan Hunter has introduced into every new congress for the past ten years. This is not a human life amendment. It would take effect as soon as the president signs it.
I
110TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. R. 618
To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the
Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JANUARY 22, 2007
Mr. HUNTER (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. HAYES, Mr. DAVIS
of Kentucky, Mr. MCCAUL of Texas, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. JOHNSON
of Illinois, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. CANNON,
Mr. WAMP, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. RENZI, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. ROGERS
of Kentucky, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr.
BISHOP of Utah, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. HERGER, Mr.
ALEXANDER, Mr. MANZULLO, Mrs. CUBIN, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia,
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. LINCOLN
DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. FORBES, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. HALL of Texas,
Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. SAM
JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr.
DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. TIAHRT, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. FORTUN˜O,
Mr. AKIN, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. HOEKSTRA,
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Ms. FOXX, Mr. SALI, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky,
Mr. TERRY, Mr. PITTS, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. JORDAN of
Ohio, Mr. GOODE, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr.
SHADEGG, Mr. KLINE of Minnesota, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. WALBERG, Mr.
CARTER, and Mr. GOODLATTE) introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To implement equal protection under the 14th article of
amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of
each born and preborn human person.
VerDate Aug 31 2005 22:06 Jan 23, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6652 E:\BILLS\H618.IH H618 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2
•HR 618 IH
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Right to Life Act’’.
5 SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE.
6 To implement equal protection for the right to life
7 of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant
8 to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Con9
gress’ power under article I, section 8, to make necessary
10 and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of
11 the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the
12 United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right
13 to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each
14 human being.
15 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
16 For purposes of this Act:
17 (1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING.—The
18 terms ‘‘human person’’ and ‘‘human being’’ include
19 each and every member of the species homo sapiens
20 at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the
21 moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at
22 which an individual member of the human species
23 comes into being.
24 (2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ used in the
25 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the
VerDate Aug 31 2005 22:06 Jan 23, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H618.IH H618 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3
•HR 618 IH
1 United States and other applicable provisions of the
2 Constitution includes the District of Columbia, the
3 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other terri4
tory or possession of the United States.
I could care less if you “take me seriously,” or not. You’ve got a chip on your shoulder the size of Texas, and nothing I could say is likely to change that.
Would you take away states’ authority in the former instance?
***Yes, in the case of baby killing. Which is why I believe this frederalism approach is way wrong for unborn babies as well. I’m okay with incrementalism, but this is the wrong approach.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1921162/replies?c=499
thanks for the ping. B4DH.
Hunter is probably more pro-life than Huckabee, who’s getting so much mileage from his steadfast position.
And then when we contrast Hunter to Thompson, we see Thompson wanting to take a federalist approach. No one would take a federalist approach to baby killing, so it is a sign that Fred simpy doesn’t want to deal with it.
Open Letter to the South Carolina GOP – Duncan Hunter is the Only Choice
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1952186/posts?page=42#42
Dissembling. While Mitt Romney has given his explanation for how & when he switched from pro-choice to pro-life, you will not find a similar explanation from Mr. Thompson. In fact, he falsely says he was always pro-life. That is patently untrue, as all of his public statements and survey answers showed he was indeed pro-choice at least through the late1990s. Granted, he always supported certain restrictions, at least after the first trimester. But his direct quotes such as “The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own” are proof positive he was pro-choice. And his answers about his role in McCain Feingold have been equally evasive and disingenuous at best. CFR is every bit as much his baby as it is McCain’s or Feingold’s, with the worst part – the prohibition of independent issue ads before an election – receiving his full sponsorship and support. It appears that his ‘straight talk’ is similar to that of McCain’s.
Yes there is, you could tell me what a president could do to end abortion.
“And then when we contrast Hunter to Thompson, we see Thompson wanting to take a federalist approach. No one would take a federalist approach to baby killing, so it is a sign that Fred simpy doesn’t want to deal with it.”
Exactly. Plus, it is an unconstitutional approach. Many people here seem to confuse federalism with states’ rights. States’ rights is only one aspect of federalism.
Federalism is about defined powers and duties, separate powers and duties, and shared powers and duties.
The constitution identifies some powers as belonging to a specific branch of govt., or to the state or federal domain,as in the president being the commander in chief, or the congress controlling budgets, and undefined powers belonging to the states.
Then, there are supposed to be separate powers, like the federal gov’t maintaining the military, and state govt’s handling ordinary and local things, like zoning, and police and fire departments.
Then, of course, there are shared duties: like DEFENDING HUMAN LIFE-the primary purpose of all levels and branches of government.
Defending human life is not a federalist issue.
Just keep the oath. Including the Fourteenth Amendment's protections for all persons. That goes for every other sworn officer of the United States.
That. isn't. an. answer.
What good is it for a candidate to spout the right platitudes if it can't be translated into action?
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.