Politics – Traditional small government conservatives suddenly become big government legislators of morality when the abortion issue crops up. Despite the absence of any Constitutional evidence of Congressional authority, the typical cries of Judicial Activism are curiously absent when the Court hands down a decision that flies in the face of Roe v Wade.
Can it be called an activist court when the ruling protects the right to live? Religion aside, lets look at the issue as an ethical issue. How ethical is it to allow a partial birth, only minutes away from complete separation from the mother, to be terminated?
Does the state have a vested interest in protecting the weakest among us? Are we to be allowed to pick and chose among the innocents who is to live and who is to die? Is not the government involved in Roe vs. Wade?
No matter how one feels about abortion, it was an activist court that decided there was a constitutional right to an abortion. Although a personal decision for a woman to chose, should the state offer programs so that an informed decision can be made? We do it all the time, regulating advertisement, health warnings, public announcements, etc. Given that it's impossible for the state not to be involved.
Read the specious arguments, we want the horribly deformed to be born, no, we don't want the healthy killed.
not taking sides on the morality here, but even IF this is murder, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to deal with murder?
that's a state or local issue only.
Simple the RIGHT TO LIFE Clause to answer your question and that makes it a federal issue
There are only 3 crimes listed in the constitution:
* Treason
* Piracy
* Counterfeiting
EVERYthing else is left to the states.
I'm curious what the clause is that you're referring to...
There may only be three crimes listed, but there is a right to life listed even though its not listed as a crime, but a right implies inforcement of said right is expected. There is plenty federal laws on the books that dont fall under those three. What you are saying is IF the constitution states that you have a right and a State says you dont the state wins the argument since the State is the only one that can enforce the right if it doesn't fall under the three crimes listed. So then IF the Federal Government opens your mail its al right by you since it would only violate your right to privacy, but that isnt one of your three listed crimes is it?
ok, you're missing the point.
The constitution and the bill of rights doesn't apply to you, or to me, or to anyone. it applies to the federal government.
The Constitution says what the federal government CAN do, and the bill of rights says what it can NOT do.
the feds couldn't legally violate my right to privacy because there's nothing in the constitution which authorizes them to do so.
the feds also can't regulate medical procedures, murder, or anything related - because there's nothing in the constitution which authorizes them to do so.
"There is plenty federal laws on the books that dont fall under those three. "
just one more point - you're right. there ARE plenty of laws, regulations, agencies and the like - that aren't authorized by the constitution. and that's the point. the federal government violates the constitution every single day.
it used to be that conservatives opposed the feds overstepping the limits of the constitution.
now, they cheer it on. That's the issue that the article is talking about. not the morality vs. the immorality of abortion itself...
but, of the unconstitutional power that the federal government exercises every day.
populist,
I don't think you are gonna like this, but it's a federal issue, because murder affects interstate commerce according to interstate commerce clause.
For instance, if crime happens in more than one state or a criminal escapes from one state to another that's when the crime becomes part of FBI jurisdiction.
PS: I doubt that's the argumentation behind it, but I just love the interstate commerce clause arguments.
No, sir, you cannot scratch your butt with your hand according to our new federal anti-butt scratching legislation, because it affects national sales of new butt-scratching devices. ROFL.
There IS no right to life.
You think not? Amendment XIV to the constitution READ & ENJOY first section only included since it is very long and wont fit character limits
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state 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.
http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortionSurviv...
For those who want to see what a Abortion survivor has to say about it!!
i think the debate about state versus federal is academic. Abortion is murder. The states should see it as such. Will we start to kill severely mentally handicapped people next? It is amazing to me that the moral highground has flipped and the temporary right to a women's body has superceded the right to an entire life. For full disclosure, I am not a religous person. I see it as murder. murder is wrong.
That's right MajJohn! We want the healthy to be able to step into the meatgrinders of neocon Presidents an their cohorts...
We also don't want babies "killed", for to do so would irreparably HARM our God-given Capitalist system, which has no equal in this world and which is why America is "The Greatest nation on Earth".......
Born-again "Christians" are the most superficially-thinking beings on earth, and the sooner "Born-again" Christianity is exposed for what it is, a means to intimidate the sheep into remaining DUMB and keep them from QUESTIONING their comfortable, well-fed SHEPHERDS, the BETTER!
I wish the writer had kept his mouth shut. Zealots wouldn't have noticed, and articles like this could give them more impetus to use more 'fear' in the 08 election. The decision wasn't about Constitutional law. It was about five Catholics on the Supreme court wanting all abortion abolished.
But it can't stop with this law;
Example: If there's going to be a law that that a child without a skull will be born to suffer until it dies, then society is now obliged to pay for the extraordinary medical care given that child, as well as pay for the funeral and the psychological after affects to the parents having to watch it happen. Too bad society (including those judges) couldn't be forced to go through the experience as well. But at the very least, children born with horrific birth defects should be guaranteed a maximum level of sustenance, & these 'pro life' fools should not be allowed to demand they live, and then turn away from their needs once they're born.
Jordan:
something like the birth defect you described, which actually happened to a couple close to me, would be picked up in the amnio in the 1st trimester, allowing for an abortion decision then, not when the child is almost born which is what this court decision is based on.
birth defect you described, which actually happened to a couple close to me, would be picked up in the amnio in the 1st trimester,>>>>>
Not all women have amnio, as it has risks. It is not advised unless the mother is over 35, or had another birth with problems. One in 200 women who have amnio lose their pregnancy.
After three months, Anencephaly can be picked up by ultra sound; however, in a perfect world all women have health insurance and can approach their pregnancies proactively. However, in 'our' world, all women don't have the resources to follow their pregnancies so carefully. Science believes that more folate in the diet would reverse the cases of Anencephaly. Now, to get that information to expectant mothers is another story.
a) my sister in law was well under 35 when she had her amnio catching the problem
b) if you are too poor for health insurance there are plenty of free clinics that will provide you with the necessary pre natal care- all you have to do is choose to go.
I don't care how old she was. A Dr. will NOT give amnio to every pregnant woman who comes through his/her office. Look it up!
Obviously, you don't understand the conditions faced by impoverished women where their health care is concerned. Wouldn't it be nice if life were really as simple as you try to paint it.
of course it comes across as simple on a forum-its a forum. I am intimate with the plight of the poor from multiple perspectives: having worked my way up from $5.00 (total) and a tent. as well as having been an EMT in one of the largest cities in America (Philadelphia, not sure what number but it must be in the top 20)
is it easy, no. is it available, yes. are there multiple ways in the 1st trimester to safely check your babies dna? yes. even if you are poor? yes.
are there multiple ways in the 1st trimester to safely check your babies dna? yes.>>>>
name them. And what does DNA have to do with Anencephaly? It isn't a genetic problem.
amnio, cva, placenta cells in moms blood, or use ultra sound to determine if more risky procedures are neccesary.
I wasnt being case specific after the first post. my brother and sister in law had to abort their first b/c of a genetic problem which included skull cap problems, as well as neurological issues, I dont remember the name of it, it was extremely rare- I shouldn't have assumed they were the same.
the point truthiness makes is they are available ,and so are any # of other tests,for any woman if they cared to have them done withen the first trimester.this is america and there are clinics and charitys out the arse here.if the mother cared or had any sence of responsibility the opportunity is there.
There are ways to catch many life-threatening problems in the first trimester. There are also many complications that don't reveal themselves until later.
But one of the problems with this law is that it bans a certain procedure, but not all methods of late-term abortion. If you read about some of the alternatives, you might think they're more druesome than this one.
This is not to say that I think abortions should be banned. But the only legally defensible position to outlaw abortion would be to declare that ALL fetuses have equal rights as the mother. Other arguments require lawmakers to play doctor, or violate church/state issues.
But one of the problems with this law is that it bans a certain procedure, but not all methods of late-term abortion>>>>
The only thing I know about late term abortion, is this 'partial birth' thing, and can't even find that it's done, other than some nut who says he did it 700 times, according to a poster. Apparently it's so 'rare' the AMA didn't even recognize it. I find it amazing that no one even questioned its authenticity.
"But the only legally defensible position to outlaw abortion would be to declare that ALL fetuses have equal rights as the mother.">>>
Isn't the plan, going forward? Isn't that why the fanatics pass around pictures of headless babies, to stir up emotions about abortion in general? This is a pretty good rundown of the pro's and con's of the ruling.
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/...
No one would agree that this so called 'procedure' should be allowed. I question that it's done at all.
Thanks for the link to that analysis. And of course the long-term plan is to ban all abortions by declaring equal rights for fetuses--I don't know how anyone who's paid attention since the late 1970s wouldn't see that--and that the strategy the anti-abortionists are using is to chip away at Roe v. Wade bit by bit. I was just saying that if they were to be ideologically honest, courts wouldn't accept any other argument.
I don't think the straw-man description of the procedure that everyone's talking about, though, should be outlawed. No doubt that procedure (if it was done that way) is brutal, but there are other issues involved-- I'd defend it based on the rights of the mother, the stupidity of allowing lawmakers to determine best medical practices, and considerations of the mother's safety (and of the fetus, in the case of severe defect). It's also, as I've said before, less brutal than some other abortion methods, though I'd also leave those up to a doctor's best judgment.
Children with anencephaly usually die within a few hours of birth. No one except you even suggests that the mother of a child without a complete skull has to make a decision that the pregnancy must continue. Usually it is known by the 12th week if a child has that birth defect. Your argument that Catholics on the court want all abortion abolished is cruel and bigoted.
I would embrace with all my love and support a mother who decided to go to full term under such circumstances. Call me a a pro life fool, I demand nothing and forgive all.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
fyuuuuut
rylandl831968
leeharris1969
peter.andreson4
Hullios
cosmogenium
queenpea
ishmuga
lovingu
queenb727
pawfoots
saltyveruca
HowardL
jwk3114
GilbertZ
LindaLee
Prismoon
jaern
quicksilver0602
Dobes_Rule
GlamourGirl
mcarpentry
myitask
Macas
Natalie1183
jumpmix
AlaKai
Redneck
gfarral
Varadinum
LumFan
ETproductions
kctrixter
nikov
328)
personally i think this issue is one for "the states or the people" and not one where the federal government should be involved. Surprising how the "conservatives" are so happy about it.
Too often the "right to choose" is equated with "baby killer."
Keword: choose. What seems to be ignored is that there are a large number of women (and this IS a womens' issue more than anything--they should get two votes to every one by a man)who support the right to choose, who actually choose to have their baby. We never hear about them. Meanwhile these laws are enacted by men, who in two years, won't be paying their child support, claiming "birth control is the woman's responsibility."
It is obvious that the court cannot recognise that.Maybe it it was their life,it would be a bit different.
This is not a womans issue. She made her choice when she volunteered to have unsafe sex. She forfeits this right when she becomes pregnant. We CAN easily tell a woman what to do with her body...Prostitution is illegal. Choice? Women need to be more responsible with having sex and should not be allowed to click the "undo button" each time they get pregnant. Roe v Wade is an old hippy law that protected stupid women from getting back alley abortions from anyone. These same stupid women are trying to muddy the issue by sayng they have a natural right as a woman to cease an end to life.
In case you've forgotten, it takes 2 to make a pregnancy. Perhaps our government could find someway of forcing a man's body to change as well: Mandatory vasectomies to men unable to take responsibility for controlling their own sperm?
Of course nothing like that would ever happen to a man. This whole issue has little to do with "the rights of the fetus" as most of the Right Wing could care less about any baby born into poverty ("if you can't afford to feed, don't breed" and the lack of interest in funding social programs for children of poverty) It has to do with control. To be able to tell a woman what she can and cannot do is a power rush of biblical proportions. Never mind the fact that for every unplanned pregnancy to a woman, there is a man out there who caused it and is blaming her.
It is a woman's right. It is a fetus not a baby. Scientifically and biblically it is not a baby. It is solely a woman's choice. Prostitution should be legal as well. At least everyone participating would be tested for disease and we could we could collect taxes as well as they do in Nevada.
Those I know who are right-to-life (myself included) would agree with that simple statement that it is for the states & people to decide. BUT since the federal government involved itself back with Roe vs Wade, and since this is a particularly gruesome and brutal type of abortion, yes they are happy with the decision.
Conservatives used to say that Roe v Wade unconstitutionally seized power from the states to regulate abortion. Now they seem happy to have the feds regulate it.
where's that going to lead?
when some politicians in a few years change the laws around again - we'll hear the old argument - states rights.
be consistent and realize that every day spent relying on, or begging the federal government to do something is a day wasted.
and that goes for all sides of this and virtually every issue.
For the most part they only are happy to have the fed's regulate it and make such decisions because the feds ARE regulating it and the Supreme Court has yet to give it back to the states. And I believe they have been consistent in their desire to have the power given back to the states but until it does, of course they must work with who they have to work with, the feds.
Pop,
While I agree with you about the flip-flopping of the politics on this "issue", it is not a real issue.
Roe v Wade was never decided as a Constitutional right to abortion. It was decided as a woman's right to privacy under the 4th Ammendment. In effect it was the original don't ask, don't tell policy. This was done to combat the rising number of deaths from poorly performed "back alley" abortions.
since it was the original don't ask, don't tell policy everyone needs to shut up about it. It is a moral issue. Only the woman involved can ultimately decide how she FEELS about abortion.
"be consistent and realize that every day spent relying on, or begging the federal government to do something is a day wasted."
I agree with your statement overall. As always, however, the devil is in the details. The problem is that we can't all seem to agree on what qualifies as "big government" or "begging the federal government." Is it only when we give out welfare to individuals? Does it cease to be "begging the federal government" when the beneficiaries are corporations or military contractors? That's what I'd like to know...
populist, by now, I am STUNNED that you don't get it: this issue was usurped from "the states of the people" by Blackmun's Constitutionally vacuous Roe v. Wade decision. All that Gonzales v. Carhart does is take a SMALL PART of that decision out of the hands of unelected federal judges, and put it with a popularly elected Congress.
The author of the article you posted seems to miss the point that FEDERAL courts were striking down STATE partial-birth abortion bans, such as Nebraska's. As long as we maintain the anti-Constitutional fiction that abortion is some sort of 'unenumerated' Constitutional right included in the Bill of Rights, we will have this grotesque federal mess.
Recall the Ninth Amendment:
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Since when are 'the people' defined as the federal judiciary?