Posted on 07/11/2018 4:13:58 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
No life, liberty and persute of happiness to the unborn.
However, I disagree with her contention that a Justice's having the intention of "gunning" for Roe would be unConstitutional. There's nothing in the Constitution that requires a Justice to start from the assumption that all previous decisions are valid. Stare decisis is extra-Constitutional judicial philosophy ... as, indeed, is the whole concept of judicial review as practiced since Marbury v. Madison. We all (most all) accept it, but it's not in the text.
Not to mention that individual doctors & hospitals can decline to take part in abortions: in all cases or in cases where a panel hasn't decided the mother's life is at stake or the fetus has serious problems incompatible with life.
Because it is a personal decision.
Heh.
Libs don’t believe in a creator, but believe in “penumbras”.
No one favors eliminating contraceptives, punishing women or curtailing their reproductive decisions.
Most Americans want the unborn protected in our laws and protecting is a fundamental value of society.
Liberals think Americans who disagree with them want an anti-dystopia out of The Handmaid’s Tale. Nothing could be further from the truth.
And this is a deeply felt issue that Roe simply didn’t settle.
This. This says it all.
“The issue is that NO ONE. .not pro-lifers or pro-abortion . . .NO ONE. ..knows when, in fact, human life begins. Both sides have only beliefs about whether the fetus is fully human or not”
You are discussing two different things here as if they were the same - is your issue when ‘human life begins’, or when the fetus is ‘fully human’?
Which is it that ‘no one knows’?
Gossip supports your assessment. A thorough look at Kavanaugh’s record does not. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
Abortion was illegal when the Constitution was written.
Let that sink in for a minute
Who gives a rats @ss what Tomi Lauren says! I mean who is she anyways?? Any one of us from FR could be on that program speaking of what we think should or shouldn’t be!
Toss this tart to the side, and move on!!
Where do they find these people??? Geesh!
(That said—not guilty!)
Calling it a matter of privacy is like calling incest, chuld abuse, domestic abuse etc matters of privacy.
They tried saying that homosexuality was merely about consenting adults in private but we find it taught to primary grade students now
I seem to be missing that section on abortion in my Constitution...
I know she comes from a network that is ostensibly more conservative, but her stance is not conservative, IMO.
Roe v Wade was a bad decision constitutionally and the way it was decided, apart from the moral questions of abortion.
To say that any attempt to revisit a bad decision is to “spit on the Constitution” is revealing.
If we can’t revisit BAD decisions like Dred Scott, Brown vs Board of Education, and yes, Roe v Wade, then the Constitution is indeed worth spitting on because it has no meaning.
Only one who looks like Tomi Lahren. There's no percentage for Fox News (or any other "news") in putting average-looking people on screen.
Joking aside, part of the reason we find ourselves in this predicament as a nation is that men will forgive incompetents and even outright Communists anything if they are physically pretty.
Tomi Lahren is an idiot.
Roe was judicial activism that invented what was not in the Constitution.
If Roe was reversed it would not be spitting on the Constitution, it would be vindicating it.
Organized crime was running illegal abortions, but it was risky and expensive.
Since organized crime was being run out of their other businesses, they went into politics and got the Roe vs. Wade case going and used it to make any abortion legal and force the taxpayers to foot the bill.
That's why abortion clinics are run by organized crime figures (i.e. politicians).
They and their cronies no longer have to pay for abortions, and it's a big profit business with GUARANTEED payment from taxpayer funds.
So look, I’ll be that guy, okay?
Women and politics: Rarely works out well
Ask a liberal if they would accept Roe being overturned if the second amendment was abolished. Their little heads explode.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
Good points. I think it would be wrong to select a Justice to “go after Roe Wade”.
Select a Justice that reveres and respects the Constitution and interprets it as it stands rather than torturing portions to allow a desired outcome. Then it follows as the night the day that Roe Wad will be consigned to the dustbins of history and the decision will be returned to the States when a case is brought before them.
It also follows that there is no right to an abortion, no right to force another to commit an abortion on you, and no way that I or any other taxpayer should be paying for anyone else to commit this barbarous act on a living feeling unborn child for anyone that upholds the Constitution.
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.