Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping!
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...
Posted on 1/25/2007, 9:30:04 PM by GulfBreeze
This past Monday, thousands of pro-life activists converged on Washington, D.C. These activists came from far and wide, from the West Coast to the East Coast, to participate in the March for Life and to petition their elected officials to stop the holocaust they believe is taking place in the scores of abortion clinics scattered throughout the nation.
And while these activists withstood bitter weather, and the occasional snow shower, to make sure their message echoed throughout the halls of Congress, one California Congressman heard their pleas.
Duncan Hunter, Congressman for California's 52nd District and possible Republican presidential candidate, re-introduced his "Right to Life Act" on Monday, the 34th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. In essence, the Right to Life Act, which had 101 co-sponsors (the largest ever) in the 109th Congress, serves as a Congressional declaration that life begins at the moment of conception and, therefore, the unborn are entitled to the constitutional protections entitled to all individuals. In a statement made on the floor of the House, Duncan explained "one of most fascinating... shows on television today, 'In the Womb' on the National Geographic Channel, provides viewers with amazingly-detailed footage of unborn children growing and interacting in utero." Such footage depicts the unborn child sucking a thumb, smiling, crying and responding to certain movements made by the mother. Under the constitutional framework established by Roe, this same child can be terminated with the legal blessing of the highest court in the nation.
Such images of the unborn has led Hunter, and the many pro-life activists that have lobbied for personhood for the unborn over the past three decades, "to question why a nation, that can spend millions of dollars searching for life on other planets, is not able to discern life in the beating heart of an unborn child."
When Justice Harry Blackmun issued the Roe majority opinion in 1973, many of the technological advances that are routine today were unavailable. The medical uncertainty surrounding the beginnings of life led the High Court to create a sliding scale that determined abortion rights based on viability. In other words, the closer the woman was to the moment of conception, the greater her right to abortion on demand. The closer the woman was to the child's delivery, the greater the interest of the state to protect the child. And it was the Justices on the court that weighed the scale. Even more disturbing was the fact that Blackmun declared the right to an abortion while readily admitting the court was clueless as to when life begins. Thus, many pro-life activists decry the decision as yielding state-sanctioned executions of innocents and have spent the last thirty years trying to undo the damage inflicted by the decision.
Traditionally, there are only three ways that Supreme Court precedent can be overturned-by the Court's decision to reverse itself, the President's refusal to enforce the decision or by Constitutional amendment. All methods, however, are rare and/or cumbersome. The California congressman, though, argues that Blackmun's uncertainty surrounding life's beginnings provides Congress a fourth option in reversing Roe; one that does not require Congress to jump through the hurdles presented by the Amendment process or be dependent on the Court or the President.
"In 1973, the United States Supreme Court ... refused to determine when life begins and therefore found nothing to indicate that the unborn are persons protected by the Fourteenth Amendment," stated Hunter. Hunter points out that "in the decision...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 be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.'" It is here that Hunter sees the way out of Roe.
According to the text of the Right to Life Act, the Act seeks "To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person." Further, the Act holds "The terms 'human person' and 'human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being."
"Considering Congress has the constitutional authority to uphold the 14th Amendment, coupled by the fact that the Court admitted that that if personhood were to be established, the unborn would be protected, it can be concluded that [Congress] has the authority to determine when life begins," argued Hunter.
Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, a pro-family public interest law firm based in Tupelo, Mississippi, agrees that the Right to Life Act would pass constitutional muster. Furthermore, Crampton asserts that such an act is necessary for the federal courts have adopted the view that a fetus is not a person.
"In the cases subsequent to Roe, many constitutional scholars have commented on the fact that not one member of the Court has disagreed with the conclusion of the pro-abortion lobby that denies personhood to the unborn." Crampton further adds, "In terms of arguing personhood to the bench, such a legal position has been rejected and is dead on arrival."
To support his claim, Crampton points to the concurring opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (1986). In that case, which struck down portions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, Justice Stevens wrote that even those Justices who frequently dissent on Roe-related cases have not embraced the "religious view" that a fetus is a person. Thus, Crampton believes that the pro-life movement "will not get anywhere in court by arguing a fetus is a person."
It is for that very reason Crampton feels that the Right to Life Act is necessary to protect the unborn. The Act finds it legal support on four constitutional provisions that enable Congress to flex its political muscle. Hunter argues that the first section of the 14th Amendment prohibits states from depriving any person of life and the fifth section provides Congress "the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provision of this amendment."
Hunter also contends that the Act is supported by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from denying a person life. Finally Hunter argues that the Act is in accordance with Article I, sec. 8 of the Constitution, which bestows to Congress the power to make all laws that are necessary and proper.
If the Act passes both houses of Congress and is signed by the president, the result would be that unborn children, from the moment of conception, would be afforded the same constitutional rights and protections as individuals that are born. Thus, the precedent established by Roe would be effectively overturned, for the law would recognize the unborn as human beings. Even more importantly, the Act would overturn Roe without having to return the issue to the states. "Once this law is enacted and becomes federal law," states Crampton, "the unborn are bestowed the rights of personhood and any state permitting abortion on demand would no longer be able to infringe on the constitutional rights of the unborn child." Hence, no state could have a law that permits abortion.
Not all members of Congress are supportive of the act. Joe Sestak, Democratic Congressman for the 7th District of Pennsylvania, responded to Hunter's bill by stating "In 1973, the Supreme Court guaranteed a woman's right to choose abortion with its landmark decision Roe v. Wade. Over the past 34 years since Roe v. Wade, the Court has repeatedly upheld Roe's core principles. Regardless of my religious beliefs, I support that decision that the United States should offer every woman the right to have a legal and safe abortion, if that is her personal choice."
Chaka Fattah, Democratic Congressman for the 2nd District of Pennsylvania was also contacted, but was still reviewing the bill and did not comment at this time.
To Hunter, though, the Act is not about choice, but putting "our unborn children on the same legal standing as all other persons."
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=168
____________________________________________
Duncan Hunter supporters should make sure that the campaign has access to them once they are ready for efforts in that supporter's area.
Go here:
http://peacethroughstrengthpac.com/Contact.aspx
and make sure that you leave your Name, Address, Email and Phone Number.
Make it clear you are looking to support Congressman Hunter's presidential campaign.
Every week or so serious supporters should drop a little jingle in the campaign at
https://secure.yourpatriot.com/services/donate.aspx?g38vPlxkn+k/GhdlUDxluNQXQ==
$10 or $20 bucks a week will add up in a serious way with just a few thousand people helping.
Now here is a big one. Google Pump this site:
http://www.gohunter08.com
Every day at least once a day!
Google pumping works like this:
1) go to google.com
2) type in "President" and hit enter
3) scroll to the bottom and hit the link that says "Dissatisfied? Help us improve"
4) type or paste "http://www.gohunter08.com " into both boxes and hit enter
5) repeat steps 1 - 4 as often as possible, changing step 2 each time by using words like "GOP", "Presidential Candidate", "US President", "Bush", "Hillary", "McCain", "Guilliani", "Romney", "Bill Richardson", "Newt", etc. (Anything that anyone ELSE researching the presidential race might put in.)
Google Pumping will mean tremendous increase in exposure for Duncan Hunter.
Make sure you hit some other blogs several times a week and leave some SUBSTANTIVE comment along with a note that you are leaning favorably towards Duncan Hunter and that you have been to his site at "http://www.gohunter08.com " as well as his PAC site at "http://peacethroughstrengthpac.com " . This helps create a tremendous level of cross exposure and target ID for the search engines.
If folks can't do the FREE stuff, what can they do?
calling the Hunter Ping list.
Duncan Hunter is a great man, with wonderful ideas. Money will be his nemisis I am afraid.....
If Hunter's abortion legislation passes, doesn't that mean that an abortion to save a mother's life would be illegal?
So who is Duncan Hunter and what has he ever done to make anyone besides himself think he's Presidential timber? Like 434 other people he recently won a congressional race in a gerrymandered district. Whoppee. He's my man. Let me find my pitchfork from '92.
Hunter has got some real momentum! Clinton came out of nowhere 15 years ago and was able to infect the oval office for 2 terms! Hunter is our only hope for the conservative cause.
Romney's greatest service will be to knock McCain out of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Hunter's greatest service will be to keep Sam Brokeback from siphoning votes from pro-life conservatives.
We need a candidate who has a realistic view on immigration. One with bonafide military experience wouldn't hurt either. As far as I know, Hunter is the only one who clears both hurdles.
Voted Would you support Duncan Hunter to be the Republican nominee for President in '08?
Sheesh. You '98ers are so... cynical :-P.
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...
But as for bonafide business experience...Romney wins handily. I'm not interested in electing professional Washinton politicians. I'd like someone who knows how to effect a turnaround.
I'd love a Romney/Hunter ticket.
It certainly has a geographic balance as well as fairly complete competency. Personally, I'd rather see the order reversed, but I could enthusiastically support such a ticket in either order.
The drawback is that both come from states so ultraliberal, they might not carry either.
Out of nowhere? He made a very memorable nomination speech for Dukakis that was known for it's lenth.
Somebody tell me in 25 words of less why Duncan Hunter should be President of the United States? Who is he? What has he ever done except win a gerrymandered congressional district? If its just his beliefs, then lets run a talk show host.
True, Mass is heavily liberal and probably would never go (R) in a presidential election. But isn't California pretty evenly-divided?
I like the ticket combination. I'd still want Romney as the Presidential candidate: you'd get executive experience, business experience, and superficial-but-important-telegenic-looks.
With Hunter as the VP, you'd get: Congressional experience, strong pro-life credentials and appeal, and military experience.
Together, they would appeal to both West and East, both evangelical and not-so-religious, both pro-business and pro-security.
I wish Hunter well, and I will continue to learn more about him. But if he can't generate the money and following he needs, I'd hope he'd be willing to serve as a VP to whoever gets the nomination.
What's Buchanan doing? /sarc/
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.