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: 9782
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 # 49.
#3. To: hondo68 (#0)
Abolish? No. The best they can hope for is to return to pre-Roe v Wade when it was up to each state. Back then, it was illegal in 30 states.
The supreme court's duty is to be honest to the constitution and abolish abortion nationwide.
They don't have that power. They can only decide if a law is constitutional or not. In Roe v Wade, they found that state laws against abortion violated a woman's right to privacy and were, therefore, unconstitutional. The best we can hope for from the U.S. Supreme Court is a reversal of their decision -- which would return the issue to the states When that happens, you can certainly lobby your state to ban abortion or allow it under certain conditions.
They do have that power. The Constitution demands Equal justice under the law . They're human beings whose rights are being violated. Murder is a crime you dumbass.
They're human beings, when? At conception? Heartbeat detected? First trimester? Well then, Congress would have to pass a law saying that life begins at that point and abortion is murder and is thereore illegal. Any exceptions for rape, incest, or health of the mother? And what are the penalties for the mother? The abortionist? The clinic? You put that all together and then tell me how many votes you think you can get. I'll tell you. Not enough.
Well then, Congress would have to pass a law saying that life begins at that point and abortion is murder and is thereore illegal. You don't need Congress saying when life begins. We already know for a scientific fact it begins at conception.
And the Supreme Court could so declare in drawing the line to trigger when protection of the person begins under the Constitution, thereby reversing Roe and ending all abortion in one swoop, not sending the subject back to the states for a vote. That's the only way to get it done all the way to zero. I doubt the pro-lifers on the court have the stomach for THAT. I do think Roe could be overturned and the issue thrown back to the states.
Not without a case before it. Could they declare that AR-15's are dangerous and therefore illegal? Out of the blue? Like tomorrow? Even with a case before it, how can the U.S. Supreme Court declare that life begins at conception? They have no powers of fact finding. Those powers reside with the legislature. This was why the Miller court remanded the case back to the district court -- they did not have the power to declare as fact whether of not the shotgun was useful to a militia. You just can't wait to give total power to the courts, can you? A judicial oligarchy seems to be your preferred form of government. Provided, of course, the judges vote your way. As soon as they don't, I expect to hear you screaming for a representative republic where elected representatives write the laws.
It’s easy to get a case.
Well, for starters, you'd have to find a state with a law that banned abortion because it was murder. There is one. Iowa recently passed a law that bans most abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected (about 6 weeks). That was challenged in Distict Court by Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. Litigation could take years. Assuming the District Court finds the law constitutional, I'm sure Planned Parenthood and the ACLU would appeal their ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court. Add a few more years. If the Iowa Supreme Court found the law constitutional, it could then be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court -- assuming the U.S. Supreme Court wished to hear it. Add a few more years. And if the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case and agreed, then most abortions would be banned once a fetal heartbeat is detected. That's best case. Now, imagine if A K A Stone wrote the law. Life begins at conception. Abortion is murder. No exceptions. Getting that law passed by some state legislature would be almost impossible. Then you'd have to get all those state and federal judges to agree with you, all the way up the ladder.
No, you wouldn't have to do that at all. What you would have to do is take any abortion case, which opens the door for the Supreme Court to review its logic in Roe de novo. The Supreme Court is not bound by past precedents of the Supreme Court. It follows them out of the principle of stare decisis et non quieta movetur, but it always has the option of reviewing what it has done in the past and reversing on the grounds that it deems constitutional. It takes the rule of 5. 5 justices could take the abortion case and use it as the vehicle to review Roe. Nobody can stop them from reviewing Roe itself on any abortion case, irrespective of the topic. They could then determine that the Constitution requires due process before anybody is deprived of life - which it does - and then take judicial notice of the biological fact that life begins at conception, and simply apply the Constitution to the fact, and ban abortion outright as a matter of the Constitution. Don't pretend that they are barred from doing precisely that, if they want to. They are not, and they could. Nobody could sanction them if they did it. Like Roe when it was originally decided on the "shadow of the penumbra", or the gay rights decision, the Supreme Court can decide that the Constitution itself requires thus and so, and make whatever unique assertion that the Rule of 5 will sustain. They won't do it because the justices on the court don't believe in the argument. But if there were five who DID - say, chosen by a litmus test of loyalty standard by a President with a fixed view during a time that illness or some other factor fells several justices - if there were 5 on the court who thought that way, Roe could be overturned with a full-out ban as the result of ANY case that reviewed ANY aspect of abortion rights that have arisen under the Roe jurisprudence. What is likely to happen is that Roe will never be overturned. But if, perchance, a pro-life President gets the chance to appoint enough anti-Roe jurists as to comprise a majority of the court, Roe could be overturned. If it were, it is most likely the subject would be sent back to the states, rather than abortion bnnned outright as a human rights matter. But the Supreme Court COULD ban abortion outright on a due process argument.
What do you mean, "take any abortion case"? I don't understand what you're saying.
What I mean is that the Supreme Court can choose to grant certiorari to any of a number of cases that are appealed to them every year that touch on the subject of abortion, abortion restrictions, and the law of abortion that has grown out of the Roe v. Wade opinion. Roe itself, and its progeny, are a cardinal example of the sort of thing I of which I have been speaking. In 1973 abortion was outlawed by most state law, permitted by some. The Roe v. Wade case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supremes did not have to grant cert. They grant cert to very few cases each year. They chose to grant cert. So the issue of an abortion law of a state, and its enforcement, came before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued a sweeping opinion that created a right of privacy in reproductive matters out of the "shadow" of the various amendments. Those who oppose Roe rightly look at the 4th Amendment, and the rest of the Constitution, and see no plenary federal right to abortion on demand in there. They see no reference to abortion at all. They see the 9th and 10th Amendments pointing right to the States as the deciders of this sort of law. But the Justices of the Supreme Court saw a right to abortion on demand, within certain parameters, in the shadow of the Fourth Amendment. And just like that, there was a constitutional right to abortion on demand in the first trimester that swept aside all contrary federal, state and local laws. That having been established, the efforts to overturn that decision began. In 1986, the Reagan-era Supreme Court took up the matter of Roe and its results again, by granting certiorari in another abortion case, Casey. The court used Casey to further expand the constitutional right to abortion on demand, widened the law. The whole constitutional law of abortion came out of the Supreme Court. It's entirely judge made. It's not really in the written constitution. It exists, rather, according to the judges, in the shadows cast by certain amendments to the Constitution. And that is sufficient to overwhelm the 9th and 10th Amendments, all state power, and even federal Congressional power on the matter. Abortion is a Constitutional right because the Supreme Court has said it is so. Every year new abortion cases are appealed to the court, but the justices do not grant cert. If they were to decide to take a new abortion case (it takes four to agree to grant cert) then a case that derives from the Roe and Casey precedents would be there. The specific issue in the case may be the legality, under Roe and Casey, of something or some other thing. But once they have it in court, the Supremes can always go down from the specific branch to the very root of the judge-made law in Casey and Roe, and cut the root, overturning Roe itself. And there is nothing - nothing - in our law that requires them to simply overturn Roe and return things to the status quo ante Roe. They don't have to decide that Roe was wrongly decided on the 4th Amendment penumbra. They could do something different, and say that the problem with Roe is not the 4th or 8th or 10th amendments. Rather, the problem lies in the due process clause. Babies are being deprived of life without due process, and that cannot stand, thus, abortion is unconstitutional. Period. The exception for life of the mother could then be carved out by the court on self-defense or other grounds. Essentially, the court can say whatever it wants to, as long as 5 justices agree. Then - per Marbury as you cited it up the thread - that IS the Constitution...until it is amended or the Court changes its mind again. Homosexual marriage is now the law of the land because the Supreme Court did something very similar in that arena: they granted cert on a case, and then used that as the vehicle to legislate a plenary law on the matter, closing off the democratic process because "Constitution". Usually, people who write about this process by which the court makes law do so with contempt and scorn, if they are conservatives, and say it is illegitimate. Or they write with praise and support, if they are liberals (as long as the decisions are liberal). I am doing neither here. I offer no opinion on whether the Supreme Court's legislation of social law from the bench is a good thing or a bad thing. I merely note, very firmly, that it IS a thing, and that the most troubling of all of the issues facing the nation, from the Indian Resettlements to Slavery to Jim Crow, to desegregation, to abortion, to sodomy to gay marriage have all been determined - the law of the land has been set - as a matter of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, and not be the Congress or state legislatures. They had laws, but in the end it was the Rule of 5 that established the law that we HAVE. This is so. That I observe it is so does not make me an advocate for or an enemy of said system. To look directly at it and call it what it is is objective realism, and the ability to do so is the mark of a mature, non-political mind. There are many ways to change the abortion laws. The easiest is to change the composition of the Supreme Court, since that's where the federal abortion law came from in the first place.
I seem to recall you making some very strong arguments about why the court (conservative or liberal) would not do this. I can look up the posts in this very thread if you'd like. "Essentially, the court can say whatever it wants to, as long as 5 justices agree." True. But that's not the point. The problem is getting the case in front of them. And I don't think they're interested in rehashing some plain old "abortion is murder" case. Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt. Perhaps a case where some guy assaults a pregnant woman, she lives but the baby dies, and he's charged with murder. Due process demands the law treat everyone equally. (Unless your name is Hillary).
Look, we are talking about two related things in the same thread. I have been saying two distinct things. One is a discussion of the legal STRUCTURE of the system - what the Supreme Court CAN do, what it has the POWER to do. The Supreme Court CAN, and DOES make law - all of the most important and controversial laws in our recent history: Abortion, Gay Marriage, the forced desegregation of every facet of the economy: this is the legacy of the Supreme Court's lawmaking power. One strand of what I wrote was making the firm and clear point that the Supreme Court DOES make law in America, that in fact the most important and controversial laws of all were made by the Supreme Court, not by Congress or state legislatures. That was one point. The other point was that we live in a world of political and demographic realities, that the democratic process itself simply will not produce legislation that is opposed by the bulk of the population, not on such a hot-button topic, and that the judges will not be changing their own personal minds on the issues any time soon. My point was that the fixed nature of human opinion means that nothing can happen quickly on the matter of abortion. It's not that the Supreme Court CAN'T outlaw all abortion with a wave of its hand. It can, and it would be easy to do if it wanted to. But the Supreme Court is composed of men and women whose decisions reflect their individual opinions of things, and those individual men and women are no more malleable in their thoughts on a subject like this than you or I are. So the Court COULD, but THIS court never, ever will, not ever, because of the people on it. I said that if the composition of the Court were changed, it COULD legislate something new through a judicial opinion. And I said that, given that the power of the judges is based on their power to legislate with their opinions, that they would not overturn Roe for any other reason than if a pro-life majority were put on the Court. No pro- choice judges are going to overrule Roe on the principle that it was decided wrong, because they like the result. That was what I was saying. There is not a contradiction here. There's the structure, and then there's the politics. They're different. They're discussed in the same thread, but what I've said in each case is focused on the particular subject being discussed.
Their decision is referred to as case law which is the court's interpretation of legislative law. They don't make law. They're not allowed to. "It's not that the Supreme Court CAN'T outlaw all abortion with a wave of its hand. It can …" I agree. But there is a process. And that process, even if it happens, can take years. At the end of that process, yes, they can wave their hands.
#50. To: misterwhite (#49)
(Edited)
It's a distinction without a difference. Do you have to obey it? Yes. Will the men with the guns and badges obey it and enforce it on you? Yes. Will the courts enforce it on you? Yes. Then it's law. Regulations issued by government agencies and Executive Orders are enforced on people no differently than statutes passed by Congress. It's all law. The semantic difference between "case law", "regulation", "ordinance" and "statute" are distinctions without a difference when one is at the receiving, obeying end of it: it's all "law". The question, then, when discussing such things, is whether one is going to be a legal realist, as I am, and call compulsory rules by what they functionally are: law, or be an academic formalist, as you seem to be, insisting that it's not "law" unless it comes from a legislature and is signed by a chief executive. I am a realist, not a formalist. That is the way I think and express myself. It really comes to bear in law, religion and politics. What I am getting at is that the Supreme Court has the power to impose rules upon society that govern what the people in society can or cannot do, and that these rules have exactly the same power and are enforced with exactly the same rigor, as statutes passed by legislatures and signed by executives. I could go through a marionette's dance of distinctions to jump through a formalist's hoops and use words the way he insists they must be use. But I won't do that, because it establishes the formalist view as master - an authority I will not grant it, because I think it's angels-on-the-head-of -a-pin scholasticism. Abortion rights are law. This law of abortion was imposed on the USA by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set its parameters, and established that no legislature, including Congress, has any real power to alter that law, because the Constitution stands above Congress, and the Supreme Court has successfully arrogated to itself the final authority to decide what the Constitution is. Because the Supreme Court is the supreme authority on the supreme law of the land, the Supreme Court is, in fact, the supreme legislator, although out of some deference to formalism I don't go so far as to say that overtly, except to make a point and be provocative. Quarreling with me about how I use words is a waste of time. I'm never going to concede control of the language, and formalists do not have, and since Lochner was overruled never have had, the power to set the terms of the language. Legal realists actually rule the American world, so if you would understand how things are, not how they perhaps ought to be, you would do really well to try to understand what I am saying and not fight with me so much over the language. I'm not really an ally of a great deal of what the law IS, but that it IS law is factually true, regardless of what civics class says it OUGHT to be called. Abortion law is LAW. It's not opinion. It's enforced by police and courts, and legislative attempts to modify it have been repeatedly erased by the courts, because the Supreme Court is ultimately supreme over Congress and the President, because the Constitution is supreme, and the Supreme Court has the final authority to say what the Constitution is...under the current system of deference. A President could, of course, simply deny that the Supreme Court has such authority, issue orders that directly countermade Supreme Court decisions, overrule the Supreme Court's decisions by actions, and if law enforcement obeyed the President, and Congress did not impeach the President, then the actual LAW would be imposed by the President by fiat. The law would be pretty bad, but it would be the law by any realistic measure.
I agree with you here. PROCESS is the key to the whole system. Process is really the supreme law of the land. Process tends to enforce itself because of habit. Process is the reason why all liberty ULTIMATELY reposes in the rules of evidence.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWe are the Pro-Life Generation and we will abolish abortion
#4. To: misterwhite (#3)
#11. To: A K A Stone (#4)
The supreme court's duty is to be honest to the constitution and abolish abortion nationwide.
#13. To: misterwhite (#11)
#14. To: A K A Stone (#13)
The Constitution demands Equal justice under the law . They're human beings whose rights are being violated.
#29. To: misterwhite (#14)
They're human beings, when? At conception? Heartbeat detected? First trimester?
#31. To: A K A Stone (#29)
You don't need Congress saying when life begins. We already know for a scientific fact it begins at conception.
#37. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
And the Supreme Court could so declare
#38. To: misterwhite (#37)
#40. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#38)
It’s easy to get a case
#41. To: misterwhite (#40)
Well, for starters, you'd have to find a state with a law that banned abortion because it was murder. There is one.
#43. To: Vicomte13 (#41)
What you would have to do is take any abortion case, which opens the door for the Supreme Court to review its logic in Roe de novo.
#45. To: misterwhite (#43)
What do you mean, "take any abortion case"? I don't understand what you're saying.
#46. To: Vicomte13 (#45)
If they were to decide to take a new abortion case
#47. To: misterwhite (#46)
I seem to recall you making some very strong arguments about why the court (conservative or liberal) would not do this. I can look up the posts in this very thread if you'd like.
#49. To: Vicomte13 (#47)
The Supreme Court CAN, and DOES make law
Replies to Comment # 49. Their decision is referred to as case law which is the court's interpretation of legislative law. They don't make law. They're not allowed to.
#51. To: misterwhite (#49)
I agree. But there is a process. And that process, even if it happens, can take years. At the end of that process, yes, they can wave their hands.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 49.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]