Video and Audio
See other Video and Audio Articles
Title: We are the Pro-Life Generation and we will abolish abortion
Source:
Students for Life of America
URL Source: http://studentsforlife.org/
Published: Jul 3, 2018
Author: Students for Life of America
Post Date: 2018-07-03 16:51:43 by Hondo68
Keywords: Baby assassin Trump, Funds Planned Parenthood, Three times, so far
Views: 9720
Comments: 51
Our mission statement Students for Life of America exists to recruit, train, and mobilize the Pro-Life Generation to abolish abortion.
Poster Comment: The spending bill passed the Senate by a vote of 80-17 and was approved by the House, 316 to 90. Trump signed the bill into law on Friday. The deal places the president in the position of abandoning a specific promise made to his conservative base during his 2016 campaign. Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence outlined a pro-life agenda for a Trump administration. “I am committed to…Defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they continue to perform abortions, and re-allocating their funding to community health centers that provide comprehensive health for women,” Trump said in a letter to national pro-life leaders in 2016. Republicans, of course, claim to be a pro-life party, but have failed to defund Planned Parenthood, despite promises to the contrary. Terence Jeffrey, editor-in-chief at CNSNews.com, observes this is “the third spending deal President Trump has signed that funds Planned Parenthood”
Thank God that these courageous youngsters are opposing Trump's baby killing D&R establishment funded, abortion mills. 
Trump’s Spending Deal with Democrats Is Funding Planned Parenthood
The deal Trump cut with Minority Leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi – and that the Republican-led Congress passed – funds abortion giant Planned Parenthood into fiscal year 2018 with taxpayer funds from the Medicaid program and Title X family planning grants.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 20.
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
Blame Trump for getting a budget if you’d like: he’s not a one-issue President. Judge him on his Supreme Court picks.
I'm not a one issue guy, so I'm not betting the farm on Gorsuch and whoever else. Shut the government down until they quit killing babies. Who wants a baby killing gov anyways? Not even Pope Francis would want a gov like that, as goofy as he is. Trump signed onto killing babies 3 times, them's the facts.
More than half the country wants a baby-killing government, so shutting the government down "until" won't work. What it will do, instead, is keep the government shut down until the next election, cause a lot of economic disruption, and then hand the country over to the pro-choice majority in a Democratic landslide. The minority cannot impose its will on the entrenched majority through some political trick. It won't work. Most Republicans are not one-issue voters or legislatures. If you put the issue to a plebiscite: Should the government be shut down until abortion is abolished, perhaps 20% of the people would say yes. The rest would say no. If you put the issue to a vote test in Congress...well, that happens now, effectively, with these bills by single members about abortion that never see the light of day, because Congressmen are not single-issue legislators, and they're not going to simply throw their careers and the country away over one issue. The Supreme Court is uniquely placed to legislate against the will of the people. It did so with Roe - in 1973 the majority did not support abortion on demand. It did so with Kelo. It did so with school busing. The Supreme Court is the iinstitution that can make the country change to pro-life, against the will of the majority. Of course, if the majority were CRUSHINGLY pro-choice the court might not prevail even then. But the country is divided about 55/45 on the matter, and that's the sort of spread that would allow the Supreme Court to impose minority rule in a sustainable fashion.
CRUSHINGLY pro-choice? Then the U.S. Supreme Court might feel safe in overturning Roe v Wade and returning the decision to the states. Nothing would change, right?
Nothing would change, right? The Supreme Court would not overturn its precedent under such circumstances.
Under those circumstances, of course they would. They'd know it would have no effect.
#26. To: misterwhite (#20)
They still would not, because the concept of Roe is not anathema to the majority of justices. The Supreme Court, for the most part, believes itself to have the power to be the final arbiter of what the Constitution IS. Sure, there are justices like Scalia who say "No, no, no!", but they have never yet been a majority (and with John Roberts' defection on Obamacare, it's clear that that in the clinch there are a maximum of three such justices now). Roe was correctly decided according to the bulk of the justices, and the manner in which it was decided exalts the power of the court. They would not reverse their precedent and say they were wrong unless there were five pro-life justices on the court. If there is a crushing pro-choice majority in the country, that would be reflected on the court, and the court would have no interest whatever in reversing Roe and suggesting that it didn't have the power to make a Roe-like decision. They would let Roe stand, and they would retain their power to decide new Roes. The majority of the Supreme Court have never shared your view of the civics.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Vicomte13, BOR, due process, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#1)
he’s not a one-issue President. Judge him on his Supreme Court picks
#9. To: hondo68 (#2)
Shut the government down until they quit killing babies. Who wants a baby killing gov anyways?
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
Of course, if the majority were CRUSHINGLY pro-choice the court might not prevail even then.
#18. To: misterwhite (#12)
CRUSHINGLY pro-choice? Then the U.S. Supreme Court might feel safe in overturning Roe v Wade and returning the decision to the states.
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
The Supreme Court would not overturn its precedent under such circumstances.
Replies to Comment # 20. Under those circumstances, of course they would. They'd know it would have no effect.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 20.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]