New Bush Legislation Uses Religion to Deny Federal Funding to Womens Clinics

GRIM is right. The constitution does not address the abortion issue at all.

Roe v. Wade was not taken to the Supreme Court on the basis of the constitutionality of abortion. It was a right to privacy issue, which is covered by the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

The common misconception is that the Supreme Court ruled that abortion is legal according to the Constitution.

This overview gives a better explanation of the details:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/roe.html

.

 

lol wow, that's a new one on DP for me, the google ad at the top of the page when viewing this thread is for a pro life website.

 

this is a good point. If the old man wins he will appoint judges that are prolife every chance he gets Roe v. Wade and a lot of other issues are in danger. I think Obama should push this point.

 

Trust me..they do not want to get that stirred up right now. Neither candidate has the time to get that issue started again...It is a pressure cooker that could backfire no matter what stance is taken.
The race is too close to bring up something that you cannot win on, or risk loosing votes that you already had.

 

I believe the constitution guarantees the right to LIFE.
Plus the murder of these babies would only be legal though the constitution if we went through due process.


"At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons — convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. ... I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. ... As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court." — Justice Byron R. White.

 

Someone that is not born and who is not technically a citizen gets powers or rights under the constitution how exactly?

I don't believe for a minute the 'right to life' you claim under the constitution is against abortion on multiple levels, the one however listed above surely would cancel it out.

 

I don't know about this being a health issue. For me, it seems that I need to draw the line at what point does the little blob change from a miracle into a person. When I look at my kids and realize that I could have killed either one of them... It just scares the hell out of me.

Once the blob clearly is a baby, I could not justify killing it.

No sarcasm, no judgement, just my opinion, but I'm thinking that this world sure could use a few more people to share my opinion.

jk

 

I sure wish the government would apply this view to illegal aliens.

 

Again it is more than just abortion on this supposed legislation.

It should be.

 

Bush's administration will end

 

Because of GRIM's last post, I went back to study the topic a bit more. Some of the details of the law I agree with.

My to biggest issues are:

1) Why should I have to pay for anyone's abortion, ever? Please don't give me a list of "what ifs". I could agree in some situations such a rape, etc, but why do I need to pay for a woman's abortion just because she can't keep her legs together?

2) If a pharmacist does not believe in abortion for religious reasons, why not just go to another pharmacist? The free market will handle this. You wouldn't force a jew or a muslim to serve pork in their restaraunt.

 

You can not equate a health related issue with that of a restaurant.

A pharmacist 'in most cases' is also about dispensing products that were issued via a prescription from a doctor 'not' abortion.

If you have personal or religious view points that interfere with your job, especially when it is of the health care industry, you should not hold the job.

Do we want our president governing completely from his religious beliefs?

 

Aww Shucks Hucklebarrybee woulda been a geee-rate preserdunt!

 

1) I made the restaraunt reference to make a point about the pharmicist's religious beliefs.

2) RU486 is dispensed by pharmacists.

3) Please do not apply your point 3 to pharmacists and I will agree with your statement. I am not fixated on pharmsists, just responding the the previous point about litigation involving pharmasists.

4) I think this statement is too general, too black and white. We cannot have a president forcing his religious beliefs on others, however there are some very good moral values in all religions that we, as Americans could really use.

I am not sure if you overlooked my question concerning why I should be forced to pay for a woman's abortion, or if you agree with me. I was happy to see that we agree on at least one thing! (same thread, earlier post)

 

Says the person who probably has no problem applying the Constitution to foreign terrorists. But that is another story.

Either way it guarentees the right to life and unborn babies are included in that just as much as you and I. Why does somebody get 2 counts of murder when killing a pregnant woman? Maybe because the baby is protected under law and the Constitution is no different.

The judges found abortion to be alright on the idea of privacy yet privacy is not mentioned in the constitution. You argue that since it does not specifically state the right to life for unborn babies that does not apply. But if you include all things that are not specifically mentioned then the right to privacy would be gone as well as many other things.

The plain matter of it is that abortion is wrong according to the right to life. The woman is a american citizen and she has to follow the constitution.

 

The plain matter is does the government have the right to regulate your reproductive rights?

If so, I hope they start a castration program based on IQ.

 

Yet they are totally different, eating out is totally different than health related issues.

It is not abortion.

It is directly related to pharmacists more than anyone.

General rules of law, not religious moral beliefs.

Why should we be forced to pay for anything? If the woman doesn't have an abortion you may very well be paying for the child for years to come and the woman herself.

Talk out of your ass much? I am on record but I'll say it again I DO NOT BELIEVE THE CONSTITUTION grants any rights to ANYONE but US citizens!

You can't be serious? It is not a constitution issue, it is also much different from a third party taking the life. With your logic if someone were to get a tattoo they should get the same as the person who forces them to get one.

You are the one who claimed the constitution was specifically against abortion, not me

According to you it is wrong, you are the one not wishing to follow the constitution, maybe you should practice what you preach?

 

Like you mate. Ive seen your posts. You always like to put words in peoples mouths.

That tatoo comparison makes no sense whatsoever.

I said the constitution specifically has things in it which makes it against abortion. Never said abortion was specifically mentioned in it. The right to life itself is against abortion no matter what you may try to say.

It is wrong because it is murder. You say thats fine because the baby is not a legal us citizen. So is it fine if I murder somebody from another country just because they are not a us citizen? Your logic makes no sense. Even if it was not constitutionally wrong (which it is) it should still be illegal on a different level just for the fact that it is murder by definition.

I follow the constitution. You need to start doing so as well. You are claiming to do so but your posts contradict that. Most constitutionalists like Ron Paul are against abortion. 1. for the fact it is unconstitutional 2. moral issue. plain fact it is murder and sick

 

Do I now?

It surely does, the person forcing their will onto anothers body. You are trying to equate someone killing a person and also killing their unborn fetus as the same as a person killing their unborn fetus 'if they wish to' within the eyes of the law.

Of which I stated you were wrong, and you were unable to prove by any means that the constitution backs up what you state.
BTW I did not state you said it was in the constitution, I stated and I quote.

in regards to you saying.

Would appear what I stated was in fact truthful from what you had stated.

It is wrong and murder in your eyes, not the eyes of the law. Your further ranting does not equate as it is NOT murder in the eyes of the law.

I do follow the constitution, even though Ron Paul is against abortion he does not feel the feds should get involved in it.



You really need to know about items before you start to type.

 

yea you do

What about the woman and what she does to the babies body? Guess that does not matter? And no I am using that to point out that the law for some reason sees the fetus as life when it comes to a murder case but for some reason it is not alive at any other time. But nice try to try and twist what I was saying.

Well you saying I am wrong does not make me wrong and in fact I am not. I showed how it does and you have yet to show otherwise. You dismissed what I said without a shred of anything to back up what you said.

Its only not wrong if you see murder as being not wrong. But by definition of murder abortion would fall under that.

Dont kid yourself. And even if Paul does not want the government involved he still thinks it is unconstitutional. So if he is really the constitutionalist that you always go on about then shouldnt you agree with him? I would imagine that somebody who bases their policies on the constitution would know if something was constitutional or not. Maybe its because the constitution actually is against abortion. What a quaint idea. Why didnt I think of that.

Just like you perhaps