Democratic Senate may help prolife cause

[JimG]

They legalized abortion because they wanted to legalize abortion. There’s no “penumbra” to it.

I agree. But it was the alleged “penumbras” that the Court used to support legalization.

 

[gam197]

I am not sure how many wanted abortion in 1973. The morning after pill goes on sale over the counter throughout the United States this week and many people have no choice. The FDA approved it.

Abortion was put in by a Supreme Court decision.

History……

1917- Repeal of Comstock laws bill introduced but fails.

1923 – Margaret Sanger gets Republican Rep.Sinsky to introduce Bill 504 in Connecticut “Medicine or birth control given out by a medical doctor or nurse shall not be a violation of Comstock of 1879.” It failed.

1925 – Doctor bill similar to earlier bill but includes a $50 fine if contraception is sold without a prescription.

1927 Another repeal bill.

1929 Another repeal bill. Vote is 226 to 18 opposed.

1931- Doctor’s bill not a repeal bill in introduced. It is rejected 176 to 76. First clinic opens in Providence.

1932 – Bill 519 “A licensed physician can prescribe contraception when pregnancy would be detrimental to the health of the patient”. It failed.

1936- State v. One Package. Affirms court decision against government’s effort to seize birth control devices.

1942 – The Birth Control League changes its name to Planned Parenthood and donations are coming in from the spermicidical companies.

1943 – “Doe”, Roe” and “Hoe” are very sad cases. Doctors want the law clarified so there will be no criminal charges if they prescribe birth control to space children. Conn. Supreme Court votes it down.

1954 – “Doe”, “Roe”, Poe” and a fourth case are combined in Buxton vs. Ullman. Case dismissed.

1961 - Poe vs. Ullman, “life and liberty” - 5 to 4 vote is handed down dismissing the case.

1963 – Three Judge Appellate Division panel in a unanimous opinion affirm the conviction of Estelle Griswold and Lee Buxton. An appeal in made to the Supreme Court in Griswold vs. Conn.

1963 – While case is pending in the Supreme Court, another bill is introduced to repeal the Comstock laws - obsenity laws. (I am not sure if this passed)

Dates and cases are from pro-choice “979” page book “Liberty and Sexuality” by Pulitzer Prize author David J. Garrow.

 

[JimG]

I am not sure how many wanted abortion in 1973.

There was certainly no big push for “abortion rights” before 1973. Each state had its own legislated limitations on abortion; some were more liberal than others.

I don’t think that most State legislaors were being swamped by constituents eager to liberalize abortion laws. Which, in my view, is precisely why abortion proponents used the court route. If a case could be successfully brought to the U.S. Supreme Court and won, it would have the effect of immediately invalidating 50 state laws regarding abortion which represented the will of those individual states. And that is exactly what happened.

It’s worth noting that abortion was never a “wedge issue” until the matter was forcibly removed from the states.

 

[manualman]

biocath, you crack me up.

So it was only the luck of having nothing but noble leaders prior to these cases that pervented tyranny in the USA? The catholic church quite clearly teaches that it is the right and obligation of parent to educate their children. I’m no lawyer, but I believe there is something in there about “Congress shall pass no law establishing a state religion or restricting the free practice of religion” (my hack paraphrase). You tell me how many kids to have or where to send them to school, you violate my religious beliefs. That has a lot cleaner logic than your Rube Goldberg reasoning!

 

[mary_bobo]

There was certainly no big push for “abortion rights” before 1973. Each state had its own legislated limitations on abortion; some were more liberal than others.

I don’t think that most State legislaors were being swamped by constituents eager to liberalize abortion laws. Which, in my view, is precisely why abortion proponents used the court route. If a case could be successfully brought to the U.S. Supreme Court and won, it would have the effect of immediately invalidating 50 state laws regarding abortion which represented the will of those individual states. And that is exactly what happened.

It’s worth noting that abortion was never a “wedge issue” until the matter was forcibly removed from the states.

And so the Congress left the dirty work to the SC to make law they did not have the guts to make because they knew their constituents would not go for it. Let them off the hook.

 

[KathleenElsie]

END OF DISCUSSION.

**

**

Democrats Tell President Bush: Don’t Propose Judges Against Abortion

http://www.lifenews.com/judgepic2.jpgWashington, DC (LifeNews.com) – Now that the elections have given them control of the Senate, leading Democrats on judicial issues have a message for President Bush. They don’t want him to send up for confirmation any judges who would be hostile to legalized abortion or they plan vote down or filibuster them. Democrats now have 51 votes in the Senate and will likely have a slim one vote majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee when Congress starts its new session in January. Though they technically have enough votes on the panel and in the Senate to defeat any Bush judicial pick, they may still have a tough time keeping their caucus together as some moderate Democrats joined a group of Republicans in making sure filibusters weren’t used to hold up nominees. But leading pro-abortion Democrats tell Bush he needs to pick someone without a record opposed to abortion in order to get judges – especially for the Supreme Court – confirmed in their Senate. Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, told Newsday that Bush should nominate only “consensus” nominees. Sen. Charles Schumer, of New York, was more strident and vowed to block any nominee he feels is too extreme on abortion. “We will do everything in our power to see that that happens,” he told Newsday, saying filibusters should be expected. He added that Bush “will have to negotiate with us, because we’ll have the majority.” Read the complete story.