I'm confused about the politics of the abortion issue

[Darnok]

In my understanding abortion should not even be an issue the way it is. The Republican party has long established its pro-life platform. Keeping this in mind, I, now, feel that I can only see this as Republican Party propaganda.
My reasoning for this is the Republican Party controlled both Congress and the Presidency during George Bush’s first term. Yet, there was no bill doing a complete reversal of Roe v. Wade back then. (If I am wrong on this, please cite the info. needed for me to look it up.)
How can I trust the pro-life movement within Congress (now controlled by the Democrats) to overturn this un-Godly court ruling now, when they (the Republicans) failed to act back then?

 

[ALLGIRLS]

In my understanding abortion should not even be an issue the way it is. The Republican party has long established its pro-life platform. Keeping this in mind, I, now, feel that I can only see this as Republican Party propaganda.
My reasoning for this is the Republican Party controlled both Congress and the Presidency during George Bush’s first term. Yet, there was no bill doing a complete reversal of Roe v. Wade back then. (If I am wrong on this, please cite the info. needed for me to look it up.)
How can I trust the pro-life movement within Congress (now controlled by the Democrats) to overturn this un-Godly court ruling now, when they (the Republicans) failed to act back then?

Because any legislation, state or federal, is immediately challenged and sent to the Supreme Court (we did manage to get a federal Partial Birth Abortion ban passes under “W”). What has to be done is enough “strict constructionist” judges need to be appointed to the Supreme Court, who see that there is no “right” to abortion in the constitution and will overturn Roe v. Wade. Bush did appoint two (Roberts and Alito) of them. One more and there may be a shot.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[Darnok]

Because any legislation, state or federal, is immediately challenged and sent to the Supreme Court (we did manage to get a federal Partial Birth Abortion ban passes under “W”). What has to be done is enough “strict constructionist” judges need to be appointed to the Supreme Court, who see that there is no “right” to abortion in the constitution and will overturn Roe v. Wade. Bush did appoint two (Roberts and Alito) of them. One more and there may be a shot.

In Christ,

Ellen

Even to pass such a bill knowing that it would be challenged would have sent a strong message that the “anti-abortion” movement ment business. There have also been surprise rulings. For all we know it might have been upheld. It would have been better to make the move than nothing.
The “partial birth” ban is a step in the right direction.

 

[Bataar]

Another reason to pay attention to who you vote for this fall. There is a very good chance that at least one Supreme Court Justice will be needing replaced within the next 4 years. Although neither candidate is perfect, ask yourself which one you want appointing justices? Do you want a John Roberts or a Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Another reason to pay attention to who you vote for this fall. There is a very good chance that at least one Supreme Court Justice will be needing replaced within the next 4 years. Although neither candidate is perfect, ask yourself which one you want appointing justices? Do you want a John Roberts or a Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

How about a Scalia? By the way, he was appointed by a republican.

My point is, you can’t trust any of them.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[puzzleannie]

In
My reasoning for this is the Republican Party controlled both Congress and the Presidency during George Bush’s first term. Yet, there was no bill doing a complete reversal of Roe v. Wade back then. (?

you can’t overturn a supreme court decision with a law, unless it is a constitutional amendment to change the constitutional basis of their decision. that would have to be approved by a majority of the states, not something the president and congress could do unaided. What the president does have control over is appointments to the Supreme Court bench, which of course have to be approved by the Senate, and Republicans have not always controlled the Senate in years when there was a Republican president. Since several justices will retire and new appointments will be made during the term of the next president, that is the reason this election is critical for anyone who feels the stain of RvW on our constitutional system must be obliterated.

What kind of justices to you think a president will appoint who has gone on record to say his number one priority is protecting a woman’s right to choose to murder the end result of her mistake, since it is a “problem” not a “person”.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have thought back on Bush’s two terms as president and will admit he has put forth a showing of being pro-life. What I cannot understand is why he didn’t make an effort to stop certain trades with the Chinese, specifically the abortion pill, mifepristone, known as RU-486

The drug maker, Shanghai Hualian, is the sole supplier to the United States of the abortion pill, mifepristone, known as RU-486…

The United States Food and Drug Administration declined to answer questions about Shanghai Hualian, because of security concerns stemming from the sometimes violent opposition to abortion.

As president, couldn’t he have done something? Couldn’t he have ordered stricter regulations from the US Food and Drug Administration or pressured the FDA to pull the drug from the market? Isn’t the FDA under the authority of our president?

This gave me pause in believing everything republicans say they endorse.

I don’t think we can trust any of them anymore.

Trust in the Lord!

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[blessedtoo]

I was searching for info about the Helms-Hyde Human Life Bill that has been consistently shot down and came up with this incredibly comprehensive and informative essay about the “politics” of abortion. It’s quite long but SO worth the time. It traces back to the very beginning and explores the original support (no party affiliation for years and years) and the relationship between Catholics, Democrats and the schizophrenia of their positions. Highly recommended.

Some highlights:

Ted Kennedy, then as now the lion of progressive Democrats in the Senate, wrote to a constituent in 1971 that “the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. . . . When history looks back on this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.” Even in 1976, three years after Roe v. Wade, Kennedy insisted that “abortion is morally wrong. It is not a legitimate or acceptable response to any problem of society. And if our country wishes to remain true to its basic moral strength, then unwanted as well as wanted children must be unfailingly protected.”

The Catholic Democrats left the battlefield because they hated the Reagan Republicans and refused to endorse anything in their platform, even the one plank they knew was right. Loyalty to their new friends and their old party trumped their religious and moral convictions. The Democrats’ immune system thus broke down, and that was no less a causal factor in the party’s embrace of abortion than a more direct, active cause would have been.
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3798/is_200607/ai_n17179105/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

 

[Darnok]

you can’t overturn a supreme court decision with a law, unless it is a constitutional amendment to change the constitutional basis of their decision. that would have to be approved by a majority of the states, not something the president and congress could do unaided.

Ok. This makes sense. However, is this limitation specifically stated in the Constitution?

There are cases where the court has made a ruling which states did not like. So there is a rush of legislation to counter the court’s decision. The right to use eminent domain to take over land for building shopping malls comes to mind.

What the president does have control over is appointments to the Supreme Court bench, which of course have to be approved by the Senate, and Republicans have not always controlled the Senate in years when there was a Republican president.

This is going further back than my OP went. I was just looking at the first term of George W. B.

What kind of justices to you think a president will appoint who has gone on record to say his number one priority is protecting a woman’s right to choose to murder the end result of her mistake, since it is a “problem” not a “person”.

Appointing someone is one thing. Congressional approval is something else. Consider that whomever takes over the presidency has to rebuild the White House from a thirty percent (30%) approval rating. Jimmy Carter (whom Republicans love to laugh at as a failure of president) only got down to the sixty percent (60%) range. To get the state’s approval as you describe it, the next president will have to do A LOT of damage control public relations. This may very well could have to be done before the nominations for a new Justice is submitted. Politics is never as clear cut as one issue deciding such a long term decision as the appointing of a new Justice.

I am someone who is anti-abortion and impressed by no one running for office.

 

[puzzleannie]

Ok. This makes sense. However, is this limitation specifically stated in the Constitution?

There are cases where the court has made a ruling which states did not like. So there is a rush of legislation to counter the court’s decision. The right to use eminent domain to take over land for building shopping malls comes to mind.

.

what RvW and its companion case did in 1973 was automatically overturn was all state laws banning abortion up to and including during live birth. The decision, as all SC decisions, is based on the majority opinion that such laws violate the US Constitution. In this case, violate an amorphous, undefined, unwritten “right to privacy” in the Constitution, therefore no states can enact laws banning or limiting a woman’s “right” to murder her child, or hire someone to murder it, before or during birth.

So yes, states have tried to pass legislation regulating abortion and it has consistently been overturned when appealed to the SC by the pro-death lobby.

so unless and until the Constitution is amended to define personhood as extending from conception to natural death, no one is safe, and the fundamental Right to Life, which is the underlying principle upon which all other rights guaranteed (not granted, guaranteed and protected) mentioned or implicit in Constitution has been abrogated. Until it is restored, we are de facto running the country without a Constitution, and NONE of our “inalienable rights endowed by the Creator” are safe.

 

[roanoker]

To the OP: Consider this: one political party condones and promotes sodomy and abortion, the other does not. Its not hard to figure out which is which. When you do, you’ll know which way to vote.