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


1973 United States Supreme Court

“The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices.” C. S. Lewis

Note that the only two who voted against the majority in Roe v Wade (against MURDERING babies) are on the right side of the photo. Rehnquist standing and White seated. Now isn’t that interesting

1 posted on 01/14/2004 2:54:30 PM PST by cpforlife.org
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last
To: MHGinTN; Coleus; nickcarraway; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; TenthAmendmentChampion; ...
Ten Legal Reasons to Reject Roe

Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

2 posted on 01/14/2004 2:57:11 PM PST by cpforlife.org (The Missing Key of the Pro-Life Movement is at www.CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Roe v Wade
3 posted on 01/14/2004 2:59:52 PM PST by cpforlife.org (The Missing Key of the Pro-Life Movement is at www.CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cpforlife.org
Bump for later read.
5 posted on 01/14/2004 3:10:06 PM PST by Keyes2000mt (Pray for Rush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cpforlife.org
The article is spot on. The Court just made this up and legislated from the bench. Harry Blackmun was a very nice man, but a hopelessly muddled thinker who will go down in history as a terrible Justice.

Many think the Court did this to head off a nasty and divisive fight over legalizing abortion that was boiling up in the state legislatures. They thought this would settle the issue for good. What elitists don't get is that an issue is only settled legitimately in the minds of the people when it has been resolved through the democratic process and is open to revision in the future should majority feeling change. Rule by judicial fiat doesn't settle anything; thus, Roe opened a 30-year cultural civil war that rages on today.

6 posted on 01/14/2004 3:12:47 PM PST by colorado tanker ("There are but two parties now, Traitors and Patriots")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cpforlife.org
Thanks for all the valuable information you post for Pro Life. This article is among the most significant I have seen. It will be making the rounds of my email contact list.

Last week Kate Michelman (NARAL-retiring chief abortion propagandist) spoke at the National Press Club. I have emailed NPC President asking when a Pro Life speaker will be invited to speak. I will let you know what I hear back.

7 posted on 01/14/2004 3:12:48 PM PST by eleni121 (Preempt and Prevent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cpforlife.org
BUMP!
8 posted on 01/14/2004 3:13:39 PM PST by eleni121 (Preempt and Prevent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cpforlife.org
Hello, to All !!! From PA_hayseed: I'm an ordinary man with a crude and unrefined idea, like iron ore fresh from the ground. As steel is made by first putting iron ore in a hot fire to burn away impurities and adding a few ingredients, then perhaps this raw idea could be forged into something that could overturn Roe v. Wade.
I'm all for property rights, and ownership of one's own body is a fundamental pillar of property rights. The "pro-choice" crowd considers a developing baby (they call it a fetus) in the womb nothing more than a wart, cyst, or growth --- just a fleshy parasite to be removed, cut away, whenever it becomes "inconvient".

(I believe) Forensic science has established in the courts that a 98.9% DNA match identifies a DNA sample to "someone", so if a wart, mole, cyst or any growth satisfies the 98.9% genetic DNA match with that person's DNA (use a blood sample for a control in the test), then the rights of ownership of one's own body kicks-in and that person is free to remove, excise, or cut away that mole, cyst, or growth.

But if that 98.9% match is not established --- a pre-born child would only have a 50% match (biologists out there, please advise), then that pre-born child would only be guilty of "simple trespass" (an example of "simple trespass" would be an invited guest refusing to leave after a party) according to the property rights of one's body. I believe that there are existing criminal laws already on the books that consider the act of killing someone, who is unarmed, for simple trespass, murder.

I realize that the moment of birth is now recognized as the beginning of a person's life, and only then would have the full protection of the law, but if the pre-born is already alive, and possesses his/her own unique human DNA, shouldn't the law's definition of personhood be revised? (I believe we're almost there now, Freeper Lawyers, please advise)

Please flame away ----- if, together, we can get the fire hot enough, we can make some good steel with which to forge a sword to slay the Roe v. Wade monster that was spawned thirty years ago.


9 posted on 01/14/2004 3:28:06 PM PST by PA_hayseed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cpforlife.org
Brilliant article ... thanks for posting.

Roe v. Wade is the perfect example of the corrupt liberal mentality: elitest, incoherent and selfish, all covered up by affectation.

In so many ways, abortion and the abortion culture are a mirror for a person's deepest impulses.

10 posted on 01/14/2004 3:37:23 PM PST by Urbane_Guerilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cpforlife.org
Cutting to the chase..........its just WRONG!! The God of Abraham whom they are trying to remove from this country says..."You reap what you sow." We have sown a blood bath of unborn murdered children, now we will watch the ones we chose to keep become murders of each other. You sow a spirit of murder, you will reap murder. As all the experts stand around scratching their heads wondering what has happened to this country and why is each generation so much more vicious, cold hearted and blood thirsty. We taught them.
11 posted on 01/14/2004 3:53:56 PM PST by BriarBey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cpforlife.org
Roe No More
13 posted on 01/14/2004 4:50:06 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cpforlife.org
Great article!
14 posted on 01/14/2004 4:51:04 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cpforlife.org; *Catholic_list; father_elijah; nickcarraway; SMEDLEYBUTLER; Siobhan; Lady In Blue; ..
Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via Freepmail if you would like to be added to or removed from the Catholic Discussion Ping list.

15 posted on 01/14/2004 4:52:39 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cpforlife.org
Bump for life. This is the most crucial battle our nation faces.
19 posted on 01/14/2004 7:56:01 PM PST by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cpforlife.org
11. The concept of fetal viability is technology dependent. An 8 month fetus may not have been viable 100 years ago, but it is now. Likewise, a 5 month fetus may not be viable now, but may well be 100 years from now. Fundamental human rights are not technology dependent. Furthermore, by taking technology trends to their limit, the fetus becomes viable at conception.

12. The Preamble of the Constitution states:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.
Abortion fundamentally denies "our posterity" the rights guaranteed under that Constitution.
20 posted on 01/14/2004 8:11:04 PM PST by polemikos (Democrats -- Proudly Confusing Libertinism with Freedom for Over 100 Years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cpforlife.org
bump
21 posted on 01/14/2004 8:15:31 PM PST by Tribune7 (Vote Toomey April 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cpforlife.org
1. The Court's decision in Roe v. Wade exceeded its constitutional authority.
. . . In Roe v. Wade and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, however, the Court struck down criminal laws of Texas and Georgia . . . (and those of the other 48 states). . . .
". . . to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 states are constitutionally disentitled. . . ."

This gets at the heart of the matter, constitutionally speaking. The federal government--in this case, the Supreme Court--took away the states' "right to choose," their right to choose to have laws against abortion. This, without any constitutional basis, and against the restrictions placed on the federal government in the Tenth Amendment.

There are two main arguments against abortion--constitutional and moral. Most pro-lifers know only the moral argument. We do well to know the constitutional one. This takes away the "you're just imposing your religion" line from the pro-abort crowd. Theoretically, one need not even have an opinion on the morality of abortion in order to realize that the federal government had no business overturning the laws of the several states in this matter.

If you don't know the Tenth Amendment, read it. Of course, the Tenth Amendment gets at the whole of the Big Government problem--unconstitutional federal intrusions into education, health care, pensions, etc. etc. etc.--areas where the federal government has no business.

22 posted on 01/14/2004 8:43:10 PM PST by Charles Henrickson (Tenth Amendment constitutional conservative--and social conservative, too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cpforlife.org
Best article on Roe and Doe I have seen in my time here at FR.
23 posted on 01/14/2004 8:53:52 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 2nd amendment mama; A2J; Agitate; Alouette; Annie03; aposiopetic; attagirl; axel f; Balto_Boy; ...
Looks like a bookmark!

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

24 posted on 01/14/2004 9:37:54 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Pre-empt the third murder attempt-- Pray for Terry Schiavo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cpforlife.org
Bump for later.
26 posted on 01/14/2004 10:52:50 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cpforlife.org
Thanks for posting this. Here is another good article by Dr. Herb Titus which debunks the false premise that Roe v. Wade legal authority outside of the parties that were at suit:

It's time to denounce Roe v Wade by Dr. Herb Titus.

27 posted on 01/15/2004 2:35:13 AM PST by The_Eaglet (Mike Peroutka for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

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