Supreme Court Ruling Sets Up Attack on Roe v. Wade

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

juliee

Guest
Supreme Court Ruling Sets Up Attack on Roe v. Wade

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – Supreme Court observers are focusing on an aspect of last Thursday’s decision to overturn a national campaign finance reform law that shows the high court could establish a legal basis for overturning the Roe v. Wade decision that has resulted in 52 million abortions.

LifeNews.com/nat5921.html
 
juliee said:
Supreme Court Ruling Sets Up Attack on Roe v. Wade

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – Supreme Court observers are focusing on an aspect of last Thursday’s decision to overturn a national campaign finance reform law that shows the high court could establish a legal basis for overturning the Roe v. Wade decision that has resulted in 52 million abortions.

LifeNews.com/nat5921.html
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing this! I was feeling a bit discouraged at the lack of coverage for our Walk for LIfe here on the West Coast.

I might applaud the Supreme Court’s respect for Truth without assigning them a political agenda that they may not have. 🤷 I don’t think Justice Roberts has an agenda, other than doing is job to the best of his ability, for which he is well-respected.

I really admire your enthusiasm and share your excitement! Thank you so much for sharing this, juliee, you really made my day. 🙂
 
Then let us continue to pray. It still baffles me that people can believe that a woman’s right to choose, somehow supersedes a babies right to live.
 
Isn’t it interesting how the pro-abortion faction is now admitting what pro-life advocates have been arguing all along. I found this quote (bolding mine), from the Center for Reproductive Rights’ spokeswoman facinating.
“Yesterday’s Roberts court decision, which exhibited a stunning disregard for settled law of decades’ standing, is terrifying to those of us who care deeply about the **constitutional protections the court put in place **for women’s access to abortion."
Click to expand...
For decades the pro-abortion side have argued that Roe was constitutional because of an implied right to “privacy”. Here, this spokeswoman is admitting that Roe added something new, that wasn’t already in the constitution (overt or implied).

Wow.
 
You may be parsing that a bit much, but if so it clearly was a misstep by spokeswoman (in her eyes).

Of course, maybe you aren’t overparsing. Then it clearly was a misstep.😉 However, for a clear and obvious misstep, check out this from about a week ago on catholic.org.

I am not a fan of that writer. Her characterizations are sometimes disingenuous (from the tone it should be obvious of that danger). Nonetheless her points, if not somewhat rabid, check out, and are stunning.
 
Roberts and Alito are making a crystal clear point. Precedent is NOT binding. And thank God it isn’t or we’d have those examples they cited still.

Roe used a lot of nice words to legally declare that unborn children are the chattle property of their mothers. It wasn’t right the FIRST time the Supreme Court established precedent that a class of human beings was chattle property and it isn’t right this time either.

Hang in there pro-lifers.
 
Corki said:
Isn’t it interesting how the pro-abortion faction is now admitting what pro-life advocates have been arguing all along. I found this quote (bolding mine), from the Center for Reproductive Rights’ spokeswoman facinating.
For decades the pro-abortion side have argued that Roe was constitutional because of an implied right to “privacy”. Here, this spokeswoman is admitting that Roe added something new, that wasn’t already in the constitution (overt or implied).

Wow.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing. Roe itself constituted a “stunning disregard for settled law.”
 
I do not want to live in a country where my rights are not respected.
 
That would be nice, equally cool is that public opinion is turning thanks to technology. It’s hard to call it a “zygote” or “mass of cells” or “tumor” when you can clearly see in 3 demensions that it’s a livnig human being.
 
emilyt67 said:
I do not want to live in a country where my rights are not respected.
Click to expand...
Your rights are respected. You have a right to life, just as a baby has a right to life. What rights are not respected?
 
crazzeto said:
That would be nice, equally cool is that public opinion is turning thanks to technology. It’s hard to call it a “zygote” or “mass of cells” or “tumor” when you can clearly see in 3 demensions that it’s a livnig human being.
Click to expand...
and a heartbeat ❤️

Problem is the pro-abortionists are pushing the philosophical approach and we need to be able to respond accordingly:
  • it isn’t SENTIENT
  • the nerve endings aren’t fully connected
  • the mind of the fetus isn’t congnizant, therefore it cannot feel pain because the brain doesn’t ‘understand’ what pain IS.
Yes, I actually read a report recently where a doctor states that since the brain of the fetus doesn’t know yet what pain is, it cannot feel pain.

I have Fibromyalgia. I was in pain for over a decade before I discovered that not everyone felt this way. I hurt, but I thought everyone did, it was my ‘normal’. I wasn’t really cognizant of what it was, didn’t have a name for it or understanding of it, but I none of that changed the fact that I hurt. I don’t think any reasonable person would conclude that babies can’t tell that it hurts when they are torn to pieces or burned by saline.

Honestly, when Roe v Wade was decided it was a day of profound mourning in our home. Even then I had no idea the depths to which we would fall, it was all so unthinkable.

We need to do more! Why are so many people silent?

Thank you for your post. We must also be hopeful. Nova did an amazing show on the development of a Baby, really wonderful, and a great example of what you are saying. Science IS helping people to see what is really happening, I pray that this trend continues. At the SF Walk for Life, I heard a speaker say that We CAN reverse Roe v Wade and for the first time ever, I believe it is possible.

Thank you for sharing your Hope.
 
emilyt67 said:
I do not want to live in a country where my rights are not respected.
Click to expand...
Well, I have to admit, I can understand why you might see it that way, though the more I’ve learned the more strongly I disagree.

For me, I do not really want to live in a country where you are ‘allowed’ the so-called right to kill a helpless human being for your own convenience. 🤷

Thankfully, I have hope for our country’s future and believe that Truth will prevail.
 
emilyt67 said:
I do not want to live in a country where my rights are not respected.
Click to expand...
That’s a flawed definition of “rights”. All rights ARE respected here in the US. The fact is that it is impossible to grant everyone all the rights they lay claim to without impinging on the rights of others. The role of a just government is to set up a framework that weighs the rights of its citizens, and gives legal protection to those that do not rob others of thier rights. It also sets up the consequences of unretrained exercise of a person’s rights.

I have the right to free speech. If I use that right in a way that hurts others, the government has the duty to step in and curb that right and/or assess consequences. That’s why yelling “fire” in a crowed theater is punishable by a fine or imprisonment. It isn’t that the right to free speech is not respected but that it must exist within a framework that looks at individual rights as they serve the rights of society.

You have the “right” to kill anyone you want. That is a right given you by God as free will. A person in the US has the right to life. That is a right given us in the Constitution. Currently, an abortionist’s right to kill is being given precedent over someone else’s right to live. That twisted interpretation is unjust and will eventually be set right.
 
Thanks Corki, that’s a great post and the yelling fire analogy is a good one. I am concerned about one aspect of your comment. Maybe is semantics, and I apologize if I’m splitting hairs, but I think it’s important to note the following:
Corki said:
All rights ARE respected here in the US.
Click to expand...
No they are not, or babies would not be losing the life that God gave them.
Corki said:
You have the “right” to kill anyone you want. That is a right given you by God as free will.
Click to expand...
true, although it must be noted that we have a right to try and stop you from killing, by our actions, by using our free speech and by our laws.
Corki said:
A person in the US has the right to life. That is a right given us in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
WRONG. Sorry, but babies do not have a right to life in the US and the right to life is an inalienable right that comes from God. Our Constitution does not give people rights, it recognizes inherent rights that already exist, at least in theory. Unfortunately, for women and children, it does not currently recognize all persons right to life.
 
Its wonderful that we can agree that abortion is a terrible thing. We keep telling these young girls not to abort. They have their baby and then what. Where are we in supplying:confused: homes for the babies, baby sitting for the baby while mother either finds a job or perhaps goes back to school. We seem to have forgotten the mother and child after the fact.
Ben
 
balbosta said:
Its wonderful that we can agree that abortion is a terrible thing. We keep telling these young girls not to abort. They have their baby and then what. Where are we in supplying:confused: homes for the babies, baby sitting for the baby while mother either finds a job or perhaps goes back to school. We seem to have forgotten the mother and child after the fact.
Ben
Click to expand...
That’s a tired old line. All that most of those who support abortion want to do to help the mothers is to take money from some people and give it to them; they aren’t babysitting, providing homes, etc.,

I know people who *are *doing the work you describe, and they are all pro-life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top