[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: That Our Children May Be Born Source: First Things URL Source: http://www.firstthings.com/web-excl ... yndrome-and-abortion-extortion Published: Jan 30, 2015 Author: by Matthew Hennessey Post Date: 2015-01-30 11:27:28 by redleghunter Keywords: None Views: 13638 Comments: 49 A bill before the Indiana state legislature has revived what is becoming a perennial debate: what information should be provided to pregnant women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome? The bill in question proposes to ban abortions due to either the sex of the fetus or a prenatal diagnosis of a genetic difference such as Down syndrome. The law would criminalize the actions of doctors who encourage and perform such abortions, not women who obtain them. As the parent of a child with Down syndrome, I am watching the debate over this bill with fascination. As someone who believes the prenatal medical profession needs a good whack across the nose on this issue, I can see some value in the legislation. But as someone who lives very far from Indiana, I’m not inclined to get too worked up about it. However, some of my fellow advocates in the “Down syndrome community” are worked up about it. In the past, I have criticized a vocal group of campaigners for the Lettercase booklet, an informational brochure intended for pregnant women who have received a Down syndrome diagnosis. The Lettercase booklet has caused controversy because it explicitly mentions the possibility of abortion. Many parents, siblings, and friends of people living with Down syndrome view mention of abortion in this context as a betrayal of the work we do together to demonstrate the value of such lives. That the booklet is supposedly meant to convince vulnerable women that life with Down syndrome is “not so bad” makes the abortion mention seem all the more out-of-place. Click for Full Text! Poster Comment: The pro-information team wants pro-lifers like me to fully digest and make peace with the fact that abortion is legal. But I want them to realize that we are in the midst of a bitter battle for the rights of our children to be born at all. And while there are many fine doctors in the world, the medical professional organizations that refuse to sign off on informational pamphlets that don’t explicitly mention abortion don’t deserve our compliance. They deserve contempt.Matthew Hennessey (from above article) Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 23. #1. To: GarySpFc, liberator, Vicomte13, Don, BobCeleste, SOSO, out damned spot (#0) Ping redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-30   11:28:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: redleghunter, GarySpFc, liberator, Vicomte13, Don, BobCeleste, out damned spot (#1) The bill in question proposes to ban abortions due to either the sex of the fetus or a prenatal diagnosis of a genetic difference such as Down syndrome. Just one of 50 possible laws on what abortions may be legal and what are not, or, what life is OK to destroy and what is not. This is total folly. Either a fetus is a person or it isn't. Resolution demands Federal law on that question. SCOTUS re: RvW presently holds that a fetus is not a person and is not protected by the 14th Amendment which states in part: 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. N.B. - the Consitution does not define the word person. All it says that any person that is born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen of the U.S. and the state in which that person is born. There is no language that says that person is only a person if born. If personhood of a fetus beomes the law of the land then it would be up to the States to establish what might constitute due process in depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, or equal protection under the laws of the respective state. I suspect that those would be very interesting arguments indeed. SOSO  posted on  2015-01-30   11:58:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: SOSO, redleghunter, GarySpFc, liberator, Vicomte13, Don, BobCeleste, out damned spot (#2) Just one of 50 possible laws on what abortions may be legal and what are not, or, what life is OK to destroy and what is not. This is total folly. Either a fetus is a person or it isn't. Resolution demands Federal law on that question. SCOTUS re: RvW presently holds that a fetus is not a person and is not protected by the 14th Amendment which states in part: From the Syllabus of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Enacting state laws contrary to Roe are feel-good measures which pander to voters, but which are null and void and nearly certain to be struck down on appeal. Supreme Court action could result in all abortions being legal, some abortions being legal, all abortions being unlawful, or abortions returned to being a matter of state jurisdiction. Prohibition of all abortions will probably need to come from the political process, not the judicial process. 3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164. (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164. (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164. (c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165. Prior to the Civil War, federal jurisdiction was not imaginined to reach crimes against individuals in states. Murder, rape, etc., were the exclusive concern of the states. The only crime defined in the Constitution is treason, and only in the District of Columbia does the federal government exert exclusive jurisdiction. Until the mid-twentieth century, abortion was a matter of state jurisdiction. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2045&context=faculty_scholarship ANNALS, AAPSS, 543, January 1996 Federalizing Crime: Assessing the Impact on the Federal Courts By SARA SUN BEALE Duke University Scholar Repositary Sara Sun Beale is professor of law at Duke University School of Law, where her teaching includes a course in federal criminal law. She earlier served in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel and the Office of the Solicitor General. She has also served as a reporter for the Federal Courts Study Committee and a federal-state working group studying federal criminal jurisdiction. Among her publications, she is the coauthor, with Norman Abrams, of Federal Criminal Law and Its Enforcement (2d ed., 1993). [excerpt] Federal jurisdiction before the Civil War Until the Civil War, there were only a small number of federal offenses, and they generally dealt with injury to or interference with the federal government itself or its programs. The federal offenses of the time included treason, bribery of federal officials, perjury in federal court, theft of government property, and revenue fraud. Since the federal government was small and it conducted few programs, the list of actions classified as offenses for the protection of federal interests was correspondingly restricted. Except in those areas where federal jurisdiction was exclusive – the District of Columbia and the federal territories – federal law did not reach crimes against individuals. Crimes against individuals – such as murder, rape, arson, robbery, and fraud – were the exclusive concern of the states. State law defined these offenses, which were prosecuted by state or local officials in the state courts. nolu chan  posted on  2015-01-30   16:27:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: nolu chan, redleghunter, GarySpFc, liberator, Vicomte13, Don, BobCeleste, out damned spot (#9) Supreme Court action could result in all abortions being legal, some abortions being legal, all abortions being unlawful, or abortions returned to being a matter of state jurisdiction. The latter would be the most ridicules result of all for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the Fed took jurisdiction from the states when SCOTUS decided RvW. Can anyone deny that the on again-off again Prohibition debacle was not only plain stupid but a total embarassment to the country? One of the (supposedly) unintended consequences of that ill-conceived law was the irreversible rise in the Federal income tax on working people. I wonder if the supporters of Prohibition ever saw that coming. SOSO  posted on  2015-01-30   16:47:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: SOSO, redleghunter, GarySpFc, liberator, Vicomte13, Don, BobCeleste, out damned spot (#10) Supreme Court action could result in all abortions being legal, some abortions being legal, all abortions being unlawful, or abortions returned to being a matter of state jurisdiction. The latter would be the most ridicules result of all for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the Fed took jurisdiction from the states when SCOTUS decided RvW. Roe relies on a somewhat nebulous finding of a woman's constitutional right to privacy which includes a right to abortion. Take that away and you take away the jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide the case at all. That would send it back to the states. That result of lack of jurisdiction is only ridiculous if you find that a woman does, indeed, have a constitutional right to privacy that includes abortion. I disagree with the law on many issues, and specifically on the issue of Roe v. Wade, which I have long opined was wrongly decided. I do not think it is a matter of Federal jurisdiction. The constitution did not delegate any power to the Federal government to exercise jurisdiction over murder or abortion, and no claim to such jurisdiction, or to any jurisdiction in the states over crimes against individuals was claimed before the Civil War. See Federalizing Crime: Assessing the Impact on the Federal Courts by Sara Sun Beale at page 40. Federal jurisdiction to crimes against individuals only extended to the District of Columbia and the Federal territories. The biggest problem with Roe is not what the Court decided but that it decided at all. The issue should have been decided in the political process, not the judicial process. If the several states adopt different laws and regulations within their jurisdiction, that is the way the system is supposed to work. It was the usurpation of jurisdiction that made the Roe decision possible. A century and a half of not following the Rule of Law, and incrementally usurping power, enabled a decision in Roe v. Wade which should not exist. Prohibition is not a good legal comparison. Prohibition was clearly enabled by a constitutional amendment. Another constitutional amendment ended it. With Roe, it supposedly falls under federal jurisdiction by way of a right of privacy emanating from a penumbra of one amendment or another. The 14th Amendment provides, 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. Re an abortion, does a State abridge the privileges or immunities of a citizen fetus? Does a State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law? Does a State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws? Read those carefully. The first only applies to citizens. All only apply to actions of a State. We are not discussing State ordered abortions. As for the constitution right of privacy, and what all it covers, it is difficult to find. I question the assertion of Federal jurisdiction. I know of no Federal law that recognizes a fetus as a citizen or a person. Of course, the Court could render an opinion that says a fetus is a person at conception, but it would not be interpreting any law is so doing. That is really an issue for the political process. nolu chan  posted on  2015-01-30   21:11:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: nolu chan, redleghunter, GarySpFc, liberator, Vicomte13, Don, BobCeleste, out damned spot (#13) That result of lack of jurisdiction is only ridiculous if you find that a woman does, indeed, have a constitutional right to privacy that includes abortion. You misundrestand, I believe that it is only the Fed that can determine what is a person and therefore entitled to due process and equal treatment under the law."The constitution did not delegate any power to the Federal government to exercise jurisdiction over murder or abortion," I am not a lwayer, you are, but what is Section 1 of the 14th Amnemdnet all about? SOSO  posted on  2015-01-30   21:39:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: SOSO, redleghunter, GarySpFc, liberator, Vicomte13, Don, BobCeleste, out damned spot (#16) I am not a lwayer, you are, but what is Section 1 of the 14th Amnemdnet all about? I have never claimed to be a lawyer. You misundrestand, I believe that it is only the Fed that can determine what is a person and therefore entitled to due process and equal treatment under the law." Roe rejected personhood. A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 [410 U.S. 113, 158] All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. 55 This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F. Supp. 751 (WD Pa. 1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N. Y. 2d 194, 286 N. E. 2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State, ___ Ind., at ___, 285 N. E. 2d, at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff'd sub nom. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 3d 619, 470 P.2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 [410 U.S. 113, 159] Ohio St. 2d 65, 275 N. E. 2d 599 (1971). Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection. What Roe adopted: This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. Whatever it is, and wherever it's found, it's broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. For the precise imprecise determination, see Roe: B. The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 478-479, 547 (24th ed. 1965). The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned. As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly. Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [410 U.S. 113, 160] It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. 56 It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. 57 It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. 58 As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. nolu chan  posted on  2015-01-30   22:08:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 23. #29. To: nolu chan (#23) Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [410 U.S. 113, 160] Yet their indecision decided the earthly fate of over 55 million persons. They basically said "we really don't know so cut away." May Almighty God have mercy on them. redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-30 22:43:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: nolu chan, GarySpFc, Bobceleste, liberator (#23) Show this to SCOTUS: Conception to Birth redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-30 22:47:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: nolu chan, redleghunter, GarySpFc, liberator, Vicomte13, Don, BobCeleste, out damned spot (#23) You misundrestand, I believe that it is only the Fed that can determine what is a person and therefore entitled to due process and equal treatment under the law." Roe rejected personhood Yes, I understand that. That is why a fetus is not afforded the protection of the 14th Amendment. The Fed ruled and deemed it so. Is this a settled issue for all time? I don't think so. SOSO  posted on  2015-01-30 23:18:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 23. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com