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

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

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Left's War On Christians
See other The Left's War On Christians Articles

Title: We will not obey: Christian leaders threaten civil disobedience if Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015 ... disobedience-if-supreme-court/
Published: Apr 28, 2015
Author: By Todd Starnes
Post Date: 2015-04-28 23:19:07 by out damned spot
Keywords: Christian, Supreme Court, civil disobedience
Views: 29806
Comments: 140

"We will not obey.”

That’s the blunt warning a group of prominent religious leaders is sending to the Supreme Court of the United States as they consider same-sex marriage.

“We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross that line,” read a document titled, Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. “We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve.”

“While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross,” the pledge states.

The signees are a who’s who of religious leaders including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, National Religious Broadcasters president Jerry Johnson, Pastor John Hagee, and Franklin Graham, president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse.

The pledge was co-drafted by Deacon Keith Fournier, a Catholic deacon, and Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel. Also involved in the document were Rick Scarborough, the president of Vision America Action and James Dobson, the founder of Family Talk Radio.

“We’re sending a warning to the Supreme Court and frankly any court that crosses the line on the issue of marriage,” Staver told me.

He said that once same-sex marriage is elevated to the level of protected status – it will transform the face of society and will result in the “beginning of the end of Western Civilization.”

“You are essentially saying that boys and girls don’t need moms and dads – that moms and dads are irrelevant,” Staver said. “Gender becomes pointless when government adopts same-sex marriage. It creates a genderless relationship out of a very gender-specific relationship. It says that it doesn’t matter and that two moms or two dads are absolutely equivalent to a mom and a dad.”

Dobson said the legalization of same-sex marriage could fracture the nation.

“The institution of marriage is fundamental and it must be defended,” he told me. “It’s the foundation for the entire culture. It’s been in existence for 5,000 years. If you weaken it or if you undermine it – the entire superstructure can come down. We see it as that important.”

And that means the possibility of Christians – people of faith – engaging in acts of civil disobedience.

“Yes, I’m talking about civil disobedience,” Staver said. “I’m talking about resistance and I’m talking about peaceful resistance against unjust laws and unjust rulings.”

That’s quite a shocking statement. So I asked Mr. Staver to clarify his remarks.

“I’m calling for people to not recognize the legitimacy of that ruling because it’s not grounded in the Rule of Law,” he told me. “They need to resist that ruling in every way possible. In a peaceful way – they need to resist it as much as Martin Luther King, Jr. resisted unjust laws in his time.”

Scarborough said the pledge was meant to be forthright and clear.

“We’re facing a real Constitutional crisis if the Supreme Court rules adversely from our perspective on same-sex marriage,” he told me. For me there’s no option. I’m going to choose to serve the Lord. And I think that thousands of other pastors will take that position and hundreds of thousands – if not millions of Christians.”

Scarborough is urging pastors across the nation to sign the pledge.

He referenced the “outrageous penalties” being assessed against people of faith simply because they don’t want to participate in a same-sex union.

An Oregon bakery is facing a $135,000 fine for refusing to make a cake for a lesbian wedding and a Washington State florist faces fines for refusing to participate in a gay wedding.

“Christians are being declared the lawbreakers when we are simply living by what we have always believed, and by a set of laws that the culture historically has agreed to,” he said. “Right now the courts are changing the playing field and declaring that what the natural eye can see and natural law reveals is not truth. ... What will we do, and how will we respond?”

Dobson said there’s no doubt that LGBT activists are targeting Christian business owners.

“For about 50 years the homosexual community has had as its goal to change the culture, to change the ideology and if necessary – to force people who don’t agree by use of the courts,” Dobson told me. “I think there’s a collision here and we can all see it and where it’s going to go is anybody’s guess – but it is serious.”

To be clear – the men and women who courageously signed this pledge did so knowing the hell storm that is about to be unleashed on them – and their families.

“We have no choice,” Staver told me. “We cannot compromise our clear biblical convictions, our religious convictions.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-81) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#82. To: Vicomte13 (#81)

Yes, that is true. But the pastors in the article are saying that gay marriage will cause Christians to perform law-breaking acts of civil disobedience, and I am throwing the bullshit flag. No, it won't.

The cynical perspective of this "threat" by the mega-thumpers is that they're expecting a tsunami of "offerings" to be generated between now and decision time....

"We're gonna make you scream, and make you shout, we're gonna turn them pockets inside-out!" - The Right Reverend Deuteronomy Skaggs

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

Jameson  posted on  2015-04-30   14:41:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: Stoner (#77)

Would be better for them to repent NOW, so they might undo some of the damage they have done.

I think all the Roe v Wade justices are now dead.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-30   15:06:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: Willie Green (#78)

No the SCOTUS ruled that THAT is a private moral/medical decision made by a woman & her doctor.

Which WAS a medical and moral (lack of) decision by the court. They played 'God' by ruling on such. No, they mandated it. Until then states could decide. Instead SCOTUS made murdering a baby in the womb standard across the USA.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-30   15:11:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: Vicomte13 (#80)

I'm sorry. No. Two million babies are being killed every year RIGHT NOW.

It's THIS generation's Holocaust.

Now we understand why the Germans didn't fight Hitler. For exactly the same reason that we don't fight our own government.

2 million a year for 3 years is 6 million, same as the death toll of Jews in the Nazi Holocaust.

The United States of America, today, is as murderous as Nazi Germany with Auschwitz. Think about that.

Gay marriage is belly button lint compared to that.

Christians have done what Jesus said: pay their taxes to Caesar, even though he is bad. They haven't rebelled over the mass murder of babies, just as they didn't rebel over the Holocaust, and didn't rebel over slavery.

They're not going to rebel over gay marriage either - it's chump change. I do not care who has sex with whom, or how. I DO care about the murdering of babies. An abortion mill is Auschwitz. And we are taxpaying Germans.

I do not disagree with you. I do know murder of the innocent baby in the womb is not even close to sodomite activity.

My point, which probably was clear as mud, was the homo marriage deal is here and now and we need to oppose it. Not be like Christians in the 70s who barely raised a peep. Probably because they never thought the court would impose such insanity and evil---making baby murder 'legal.' We can't be the same again.

So yes the #ONE issue for Christians is Life and fighting the evils of abortion. I agree.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-30   15:16:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: Vicomte13, liberator (#81)

Yes, that is true. But the pastors in the article are saying that gay marriage will cause Christians to perform law-breaking acts of civil disobedience, and I am throwing the bullshit flag. No, it won't.

I think they mean that Christians won't support gay events and clergy won't cave to perform ceremonies. I think that is the deal on civil disobedience.

I'll tell you where this civil disobedience can start...By Christian churches refusing fellowship, communion, and other church ordinances or sacraments to self-proclaimed, known and proud pro-abortion and pro-sodomite 'marriage' church members. Toss them out and refuse fellowship...first come one on one, then with two or three witnesses, then the church. After that if they refuse they are to be tossed. Let's start there.

Pastors and clergy have FAILED on that for over 30 years now. Excommunicate the entire Kennedy clan and see what happens. But no, they get Christian burials.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-04-30   15:25:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: SOSOCZ82, redleghunter, BobCeleste, GarySpFc, Too Conservative, A K A Stone, stoner, Zesta, (#74)

Not when the Pope asks who is he to judge.

Lol...

The Blind leading the Blind IS definitely a problem there.

Based on this Pope's strong, unwavering, moral leadership (OH WAIT), the odds that the crucial Roman Catholic SC justices vote pro-family should remain at.....0001%

(somebody should check whether Roberts' air itinerary includes Malta again.)

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   16:31:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: tpaine (#75)

Yep, the left abuses the 14th, and virtually every other aspect of our constitution in their effort to replace our republic with a socialist state..

But we constitutionalists can also use it [the 14A] to prevent our governments from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

Should, but will we? How do you suppose our side can use the 14A to take back the initiative or at least wall off its vulnerabilities? We're getting killed. The .g0v has combined forces with media and liberal business.

ITMT, the Left has taken the offensive and driven a tank division thru the gaping holes in 14A. As a result, it appears Constitution has been severely compromised -- IMO, close to fatally. Conservatives' "life, liberty and property" -- as well as "the pursuit of happiness" -- are already one-sided casualties, despite the Left's non-stop rhetoric.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   16:42:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: tpaine (#75) (Edited)

Our governments in the USA should have NOTHING to do with such religious practices. Marriage should not be taxed, or be given tax breaks. -- The queers want govt sanctions. Deny them.

Sadly, that seems to be the only card left in the deck to play...

Be that as it may, the language becomes affected. 5,000 years of the word "Marriage" must then be expunged in the semantic context of a man & wife.

In 1972 "queer" was still considered a mental illness. I think WE are mentally ill for allowing this day to come without stopping it dead in its tracks 20 years ago (oh wait -- that's what DOMA was all about! Then why is it suddenly considered "unconstitutional"?? Answer: The 14A. How was abortion legalized? 14A.)

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   16:48:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter, SOSO (#73)

The notion that the Christians are going to "draw the line" and "resort to civil disobedience" HERE, over gay marriage, is absurd.

The line should have been drawn at killing babies. It should STILL be drawn at killing babies. Killing babies is a much worse outrage than gay marriage. Nobody gets killed in a gay marriage.

But nope. No massive civil disobedience over murder.

Good points.

Given that, the notion that Christians are going to "stand up" and "disobey" is hooey. They will voice their dissent, and they will continue to pay taxes and do all the other things they're told. They'll vote Republican too, even though the Supreme Court is controlled by Republicans. You can bet on it.

The extent of gubmint coercion, extortion, and blackmail is going to dictate the degree of dissent and disobedience...and perhaps other more drastic steps.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   16:53:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: Stoner, redleghunter (#77)

(" My hope is these men repented and embraced Christ before they passed on. ")

Would be better for them to repent NOW, so they might undo some of the damage they have done.

They possibly repented...BUT the damage is done, and the curse passed on to us.

We are involved in a brand new spiritual battle with different personnel. This time, the other side has the numbers, the tactical positions, the weaponry, the media, and the courts....

WE have God :-)

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   16:57:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: Willie Green, redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#78)

No the SCOTUS ruled that THAT is a private moral/medical decision made by a woman & her doctor.

"That" (aka "abortion") is the cold-blooded murder of pre-born babies -- even "IN PRIVATE" -- was not ever "medical" decision (other than purely a life/death situation); It is...state-sanction execution of the most innocent of life.

Frankly, I have know idea how you expect to overturn Roe v. Wade if you don't even understand what the SCOTUS did.

It's clearly understood was SCOTUS did; They sanctioned infanticide and denied life was..."LIFE"! On the basis of the same 14A, a preborn person living in a womb has rights....from which THEY are deprived.

Perhaps the fetus or preborn needs to be named WHILE STILL IN THE WOMB.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   17:09:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: SOSO, Willie Green, redleghunter, Vicomt313 (#79)

What SCOTUS did was to codify that a fetus is not a person per the 14th Amendment. Until and unless that is changed RvW will stand.

Yup. Simply put.

Since when are SCOTUS medical experts? And btw -- which "medical experts" frauds testified that living, breathing fetuses are NOT "life"??

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   17:12:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: Vicomte13 (#80)

They're not going to rebel over gay marriage either - it's chump change. I do not care who has sex with whom, or how.

Will you rebel at the point "marriage" between beast and man or women are sanctioned by gubmint? Brothers and sisters? Fathers and daughters? 5 year olds and 85 year olds?

There ARE other worthy battles. And no, Gay marriage" is NOT about "sex"; It's about the state sanction of perversion.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   17:15:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: Vicomte13 (#80)

" I DO care about the murdering of babies. An abortion mill is Auschwitz. And we are taxpaying Germans. "

I agree wholeheartedly!!

What, if anything, do you think God thinks we should do about it?

Regards, Stoner

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Stoner  posted on  2015-04-30   17:23:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, SOSO (#86)

I'll tell you where this civil disobedience can start...

By Christian churches refusing fellowship, communion, and other church ordinances or sacraments to self-proclaimed, known and proud pro-abortion and pro-sodomite 'marriage' church members. Toss them out and refuse fellowship...first come one on one, then with two or three witnesses, then the church. After that if they refuse they are to be tossed. Let's start there.

Pastors and clergy have FAILED on that for over 30 years now. Excommunicate the entire Kennedy clan and see what happens. But no, they get Christian burials.

HEAR HEAR!

Now ALL THAT would definitely shake things up. Long overdue. Including further persecution (and maybe even lawsuits) from Kennedy and Pelosi-types.

ANY church that compromises on Biblical tenets by sanctioning either abortion OR homosexuality within its ranks must be excommunicated from that body of Christ. His Church can not subject its fellowship to this kind of blatant unrepentant hypocrisy. the AA and quotas.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   17:27:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: Vicomte13 (#80)

The United States of America, today, is as murderous as Nazi Germany with Auschwitz. Think about that.

Thought about it.

Schindler /= Hitler.

In America we have one political party for which baby-murder is supported 95%.

You have the other party for which baby-murder is opposed opposed 95%.

Conflating the two criminal "Americas" and indicting ALL doesn't hold water in this case. But I understand your point...and frustration.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   17:33:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: Stoner (#95)

" I DO care about the murdering of babies. An abortion mill is Auschwitz. And we are taxpaying Germans. "

I agree wholeheartedly!!

What, if anything, do you think God thinks we should do about it?

The new gods are promiscuous sex, abortions, and recreational drugs to smother the feelings of emptyness generated by the life style.

rlk  posted on  2015-04-30   19:07:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: Willie Green (#78)

No the SCOTUS ruled that THAT is a private moral/medical decision made by a woman & her doctor.

Frankly, I have know idea how you expect to overturn Roe v. Wade if you don't even understand what the SCOTUS did.

Not that we want to. But what if me and my doctor want to cut you into little pieces. Its our private choice right?

Expect to overturn RvW. We would have to get rid of the leftists first.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-30   21:17:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: redleghunter, SOSO, liberator, Biff Tannen (#86)

Here is what our side needs to do. We need to tell them that we have discovered the gay gene. I know there is no such thing but say there is.

Then start an abortion clinic that specializes in aborting babies that are going to be born gay.

Doing the you will put the abortion rights people against the queers. The only thing is though. The abortion crowd would probably have one exception to abortion. That would be if the person had the "faggot gene".

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-30   21:20:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: A K A Stone (#100)

Gay issues aren't on my radar. Don't care. I think mean people pose more danger to society.

The super gay types disgust me, personally. But so do country & western people.

Don't make me choose!

Biff Tannen  posted on  2015-04-30   21:34:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: Willie Green, A K A Stone (#53)

So the only way to overturn the Court's ruling is to ratify another Constitutional Amendment that specifically protects the baby's Right to Life. Congress has been trying to do that ever since 1973, with no luck.

It could be done with a lawsuit resulting in SCOTUS overturning or reversing Roe.

In Roe v Wade, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion:

That is not quite precisely what was written.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153-3 (1973)

VIII

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484 -485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453-454; id., at 460, 463-465 [410 U.S. 113, 153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-30   21:47:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: redleghunter, Liberator, GarySpFc, Willie Green (#67)

[#67 redleghunter] SCOTUS made a life and death decision in Roe vs. Wade. In effect they believed they could make medical decisions and also 'play God' by determining life in the womb is not 'valid life.'

It is not precise that they made such a decision.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 159

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.

Also,

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 162-166 (1973)

X

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.

This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the additional challenge to the Texas statute asserted on grounds of vagueness. See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S., at 67-72.

XI

To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(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.

(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.

(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 it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together.

This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-30   22:05:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#104. To: Biff Tannen (#101)

I added you to the list because of you unique perspective.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-30   22:28:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#105. To: Liberator, redleghunter, tpaine (#72)

P.S. -- The 14A should be called the Jello-Amendment of the Constitution. It has become the Left's most dependable in-absolute, unstable, malleable monument to moral relativism the Constitution has ever seen, rendering the entire document....a fraud. The 14A has been the loop hole they've fantasized about: a subversive Tool for the Left.

Here are two books about the 14th Amendment and its ratification process. The first I have put on scribd and it is below. It is available as a free PDF download (link below) or from Amazon in various print formats. It was originally a doctoral dissertation in 1906 and then published in 1908. It is now out of copyright.

The second is from 1984 and is available from Amazon used very cheap.

The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment (1908), Horace Edgar Flack (dissertation)

https://archive.org/details/adoptionfourtee03flacgoog

The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment

Free download

- - - - - - - - -

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=horace+edgar+flack

The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment

Horace Edgar Flack
A Dissertation of 1906 Published in 1908

Multiple print editions available at Amazon

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www.amazon.com/Ratification-Fourteenth-Amendment-Joseph-James/dp/0865540985/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1430446491&sr=8-1&keywords=The+ratification+of+the+fourteenth+amendment

Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment Hardcover

Joseph B. James

Hardcover: 331 pages
Publisher: Mercer Univ Pr; First edition (February 1984)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0865540985
ISBN-13: 978-0865540989
Product Dimensions: 1.2 x 6.5 x 9.5 inches

Used from $1.24

- - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-30   22:40:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#106. To: A K A Stone, Biff Tannen (#104)

I added you [Biff Tannen] to the list because of you unique perspective.

Huh?

buckeroo  posted on  2015-04-30   22:42:52 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: A K A Stone (#104)

I do what i can.

Biff Tannen  posted on  2015-04-30   22:44:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: buckeroo, A K A Stone, Biff Tannen (#106)

A K A Stone: I added you [Biff Tannen] to the list because of you unique perspective. (Huh??)

The sub-Neanderthal demographic needs to be represented too, Buck!

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   23:49:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#109. To: Biff Tannen (#107)

I do what i can.

Atta boy! The thimble is half full.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   23:54:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: nolu chan, redleghunter, Liberator, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, Zesta (#103)

It is not precise that they [SCOTUS] made such a decision [of playing God.]

(snip)

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

If *that's* not playing God, then what is?

For argument's sake of this debate, I'm going to dismiss "the risk to the life of the mother" card. It's the case in a distinct minority number of cases. Almost like a card that's played much like the "race-card," "homo-phobe" card, "xenophobe" card, etal. It's the "Mulligan" That never ends.

(snip)

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.

But yes, we DO and MUST.

"Those trained in medicine and simple science" *should* be able define and resolve "life" At minimum, it is at conception when the egg is fertilized; At the point a heart beats, it's officially "life" by ANY measure of the definition of life -- whether scientifically, theologically, OR through common sense. The problem is that although it is stated that "the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer," it indeed *does*. IT has become the final arbiter rejecting the common sense/scientific definition of "life." In doing so as per Roe v Wade, it clearly violates the 14th Amendment.

It is also stated that any attending physician with the endorsement of a patient who deems it convenient to discard this "blob of tissue" -- redefined NOT as living or breathing, by "not viable" -- have the final word on what is a Legal Execution of either a fetus or preborn. Five minutes after the Rove v Roe ink was dry, that definition has become a political decision.

The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.

The lack of distinction between a 7 day-old old fetus and 7 month old fetus -- a purposely vague "danger to the mother" loophole -- is a treacherous compromise that has wound up giving license to kill at will -- depending on the "recommendation" and "judgement" of the attending physician...or abortionist-for-hire.

How many abortions (rhetorically speaking) since 1973 *have* been performed legitimately "to save the life of the mother"? And especially given scientific breakthroughs on saving BOTH fetus/baby AND mother?

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01   0:39:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#111. To: rlk (#98) (Edited)

The new gods are promiscuous sex, abortions, and recreational drugs to smother the feelings of emptyness generated by the life style.

The "new gods" are those self-absorbed narcissists whose narcotic is whatever they deem pleasing -- regardless of morality, ethics, or consequence to themselves or anyone else.

Funny you should mention "emptiness" -- THAT would be upon voiding all spiritual connection and fulfillment with the Creator, God.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01   0:45:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#112. To: nolu chan (#102) (Edited)

So after all the legal arguments and cases, Chan -- where do you stand on Abortion?

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01   0:47:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#113. To: Liberator, redleghunter, Liberator, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, Zesta (#110)

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.

But yes, we DO and MUST.

In the absence of sufficient scientific evidence, no, the Court shouldn't and didn't. Who is we? You and I and the public can speculate all we want. I speculate that abortion is not a matter for Federal jurisdiction.

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

If *that's* not playing God, then what is?

They are playing Judge. They are interpreting the law and applying it to the facts.

I think it was wrongly applied, but you would not be happy with my opinion either. I believe they should have found it to be a matter for State jurisdiction.

It should be a matter for the State Legislatures (or if it is Federal, for the Federal Legislature) to address. The courts rule on the law as it is, not religious beliefs or laws the legislature avoids for political purposes.

The legal question is not whether you find life begins at conception, but whether the Court finds the the law finds such and provides it some form of legal protection. I do not find any delegation of authority to the Federal government to judicially regulate abortion. On their assumed authority, they found that "the word person, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." It is the word as used in the Fourteenth Amendment and nowhere else.

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, 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

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.

Be aware that Roe was also upheld under the 9th Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-01   1:30:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#114. To: Liberator (#112)

So after all the legal arguments and cases, Chan -- where do you stand on Abortion?

I believe it should have been left to State jurisdiction. I do not find a delegation of authority to the Federal government to decide the issue of abortion.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-01   1:34:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#115. To: Liberator (#96)

Time to obey and clean house.

That means all the prosperity frauds lose.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01   1:34:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#116. To: A K A Stone, BobCeleste, liberator, CZ82 (#100)

Here is what our side needs to do. We need to tell them that we have discovered the gay gene. I know there is no such thing but say there is.

Then start an abortion clinic that specializes in aborting babies that are going to be born gay.

Doing the you will put the abortion rights people against the queers. The only thing is though. The abortion crowd would probably have one exception to abortion. That would be if the person had the "faggot gene".

Yeah it would backfire. The soulless minions of liberal marxism are never logical or consistent. They are like Muslims. While in the minority and out of power cry the victim. Once they get power they force their dogma on all.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01   1:52:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#117. To: nolu chan (#103)

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.

Yet their decision led and continues to lead to the death of human life in the womb. They decided. Plus modern embryonic medicine/science has advanced to the degree where the '72 decision is archaic. No OBGYN can deny technology today can prove that SCOTUS decision or lack of one valid today.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01   1:57:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#118. To: nolu chan, Liberator, CZ82, GarySpFc (#103)

To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Right there...our government decided some animals are more equal than others. Babies are disposable items. The hypocrisy in citing the 14th amendment is staggering.

Basic logic: we all start our human journey and growth in the womb. To trivialize a certain point in that journey is absurd.

Roe vs. Wade was bad logic and a bad decision. May God have mercy on the butchers.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01   2:05:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#119. To: Liberator (#110)

Excellent points.

Plus modern diagnostic equipment makes Roe vs. Wade archaic.

But the modern soulless minions of Molech want more dead human babies so they can save more whales and spotted owls.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01   2:16:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#120. To: Liberator (#97)

In America we have one political party for which baby-murder is supported 95%.

You have the other party for which baby-murder is opposed opposed 95%.

This is not true. It (or some variant of it) is repeated often here on this site. It's an obvious lie.

In 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, the Supreme Court was controlled by Republicans. Roe passed anyway.

Ever since then, the Supreme Court has been controlled by Republicans. At one point, there were 7 Republcans and two Democrats. The entire Supreme Court has been replaced. If 95% of the Republicans opposed "baby murder", Roe never would have been instituted by the Republicans in the first place, and would have been struck down since, because with 95% of the party on one side on an issue, no wavering Republican would ever have been appointed to the Supreme Court.

That is not the case. A little less than half of the Federal Judiciary overall are Republicans. Judicial activism on the issue could bring it to a head time and again...and of course if the Supreme Court does not choose to hear a case, the decision stands in a Circuit. Has that happened? No.

You used the right term too: "baby murder". That's what it is. But that is not even how judges like Scalia and Thomas treat it. They treat it as a question of jurisdiction. If there were a law that required, say, the slaughter of all Mormons, that would be treated on its face as insane. There would be no deep, evasive judicial arguments. Judges, and Republicans in general, would address the issue face on and say "Selective murder is unconstitutional", and then provide a litany of clauses to make that clear. But when it comes to babies, it's NOT "baby murder" according to "95%". It's something less than that, an issue, an abstract issue of law and rights.

Your Republican allies are not the warriors for this cause that you think they are. If they were, then Mitt Romney would have simply signed he pro-life pledge and been as full-throated in his opposition to abortion as he and the other Republicans are full-throated on economic issue.

Truth is, the Republicans have been enablers, and have feet of clay on the issue. Truth is, you and others who really, really agree with the Republicans on economic issues, try as hard as you can to see the Republicans as the party of righteousness and truth on the KEY issus. Truth is, they are not a pro-life party. They are pro get-out-the-pro-life-vote-for-us, but when they get power, they NEVER go after abortion. Truth is, every day since 1973 the Republican Party has had the power to strike down Roe, because every day since 1973 they have controlled the Supreme Court. Truth is, they haven't, and they won't, because nothing like 95% of the Republican is pro-life. They have been co-opted by the Republicans. The Republican Party is mostly about crony capitalism. That's not a vote winner, so they play social issue cards to get the Christians to vote for them, but they put men in charge who never actually DO anything about abortion, and who never have any intention of doing anything about it.

And the truth is that pro-lifers who commit themselves to the Republican Party refuse to see it. But willful blindness does not change the truth, no matter how loudly the drum is sounded. The Republicans are NEVER going to be a pro-life party. They've ALWAYS had the power to strike down Roe, from the very day they put it in place in the first place. As Governor of California, Reagan put abortion law in place there. Reagan put O'Connor and Kennedy on the Court.

The "95%" dog don't hunt.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-01   6:36:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#121. To: redleghunter (#58)

Exodus 1

Been there read that. Who wrote Exodus?

Where's the archaeological evidence supporting the assertion the Hebrews were kept as slaves by their fellow Noahedic tribesmen?

VxH  posted on  2015-05-01   20:11:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#122. To: VxH (#121)

Where's the evidence the Torah is not historical?

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-02   1:09:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (123 - 140) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/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