Georgia anti-abortion bill strikes at heart of personal liberty

Georgia state legislators seem likely to pass a bill that would outlaw almost all abortions once a pregnancy has advanced beyond 20 weeks. (The current legal limit is 26 weeks). The rationale behind the bill is scientifically fraudulent, and its potential impact is tragic.

Let’s deal first and quickly with the ungrounded premise behind House Bill 954, which claims that “by 20 weeks after fertilization there is substantial evidence that an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain.”

No, there isn’t.

Although a relative handful of scientists claim otherwise — and many of those scientists are pro-life activists — the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the neural connections needed to feel pain do not exist in a fetus until at least 24 weeks into gestation and even beyond that. A 2010 review of all research in that area by Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists makes the science behind the question quite clear.

Now, let’s talk about the practical impact of such a bill.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, nine out of 10 abortions performed in the United States occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Most of those are unplanned, unwanted pregnancies that the mother chooses to terminate.

However, the small fraction of abortions that occur after the proposed 20-week deadline are a very different matter. Many if not most such abortions occur not because the pregnancy is unwanted, but because prenatal testing has discovered serious or even fatal abnormalities in the development of the fetus.

However, rather than create an exemption for such tragic cases, HB 954 cruelly and callously forbids it. In fact, they are the target of the bill. Abortions beyond the 20-week limit would be allowed only to save the life of the mother or “to avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function,” which is a very high standard for a “health of the mother” exception. There is no provision regarding severe impairment of the fetus.

Georgia is not alone in considering such legislation. To the contrary, HB 954 is part of a nationwide crusade to pass such laws. In the handful of states where it has passed, it’s already having an impact.

For example, in Nebraska last year, Danielle Deaver suffered a serious setback 22 weeks into a planned pregnancy when her water broke prematurely. Her doctors told her that her fetus’ lung and limb development had ceased as a result, and that even if carried to term, the baby would be born unable to breathe. But under a newly passed state law almost identical to that under consideration here in Georgia, Deaver was denied the right to end that pregnancy.

When she finally went into premature labor, the child died 15 minutes after birth. This was considered humane, moral and proper by Nebraska legislators.

In Washington, D.C., congressional Republicans are trying to pass a bill imposing similar restrictions on residents of the District of Columbia. At a press conference this week, Christy Zink, a D.C. resident and mother of two, recalled the impact that such a law would have had on her own tragic case.

Twenty-two weeks into her pregnancy, tests determined that if carried to term, Zink’s fetus would be born with half of its brain missing and other structures compromised as well. Shocked by the news, she and her husband made the difficult choice to end the pregnancy. Under the so-called “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” however, she would have been denied the right to do so.

“Its very premise — that it prevents pain — is a lie,” Zink said of the bill. “If this bill had been passed before my pregnancy, I would have had to carry to term and give birth to a baby whom the doctors concurred had no chance of a life and would have experienced near-constant pain.”

Here’s Zink’s statement. Watch it, and as you do, remember that in the eyes of many this mother of two is a murderer because of the difficult decision that she and her husband were forced to make, a deeply personal decision that members of Congress and Georgia legislators want to strip from citizens of this country because as elected representatives, they believe themselves to be more qualified.

These decisions are not easy. Several years ago, Rick Santorum and his wife Karen faced a similar dilemma and took a very different course, as he often describes in very moving terms. They decided to see their pregnancy through to term, even knowing that the child would certainly die once it left the womb. Just as their doctors warned them, their son, Gabriel, died two hours after his birth.

No one should question the decision that the Santorums made. It was their personal struggle, and they handled it on the basis of their own values, thoughts and faith. It is the essence of freedom to be able to make such decisions yourself, free of government dictate.

Likewise, however, I also do not believe it within the purview of the Santorums or Georgia legislators or members of Congress to question or most of all overrule the decisions that other Americans might make in that same situation. It is, or ought to be, unthinkable.

– Jay Bookman

494 comments Add your comment

Mick

February 22nd, 2012
12:15 pm

I’ll say it again, “they make themselves gods”…

USinUK

February 22nd, 2012
12:15 pm

but, no, we don’t need to worry about the GOP overturning Roe V. Wade … that’s not on their agenda …

oy.

F. Sinkwich

February 22nd, 2012
12:16 pm

So what?

States have the authority to this.

Don’t like it?

Move.

Normal

February 22nd, 2012
12:16 pm

I’m sure that this bill will bring jobs to Georgia, right?

Steve

February 22nd, 2012
12:17 pm

This thread is going to bring out the religious nut jobs…I gah-rohn-tee.

USinUK

February 22nd, 2012
12:18 pm

Steve – “This thread is going to bring out the religious nut jobs…I gah-rohn-tee.”

you mean bring them up from downstairs

jm

February 22nd, 2012
12:18 pm

Jay’s brain may need an ultrasound.

In all seriousness, 26 weeks seems fine, no need to move it to 20 weeks.

F. Sinkwich

February 22nd, 2012
12:18 pm

“but, no, we don’t need to worry about the GOP overturning Roe V. Wade … that’s not on their agenda …”

Overturning R v W will not make abortions illegal.

I guess you didn’t know that.

Happy to clear that up for you!

carlosgvv

February 22nd, 2012
12:19 pm

A supprising number of pregancies end in natural miscarriges. And yet, if a woman elects to have an abortion, these people charge her with murder. In fact, people not only have miscarrages, they have heart attacks, strokes, fatal tumors and lingering painful illnesses. At the same time, most Americans insist their politicians publicly worship the “God of love” who is directly responsible for these miscarriges and all this other pain and suffering. And then they wonder why this country is in such a mess.

jm

February 22nd, 2012
12:20 pm

The economy folks……. the economy. Focus. On. The. Economy.

Jay

February 22nd, 2012
12:23 pm

That’s a spectacularly silly position to take, Sinkwich.

Citizens have two choices: Stay quiet or move? That’s just nuts.

scrappy

February 22nd, 2012
12:23 pm

“Don’t like it?

Move.”

NO, we will do everything in our power to educate others about the side effects of these types of laws & try to prevent them from becoming law. Moving is not the action, being outspoken and voting are.

USinUK

February 22nd, 2012
12:25 pm

“Overturning R v W will not make abortions illegal.”

no, but it will open the door for states to do so.

USinUK

February 22nd, 2012
12:25 pm

“That’s a spectacularly silly position to take, Sinkwich.”

consider the source

Steve

February 22nd, 2012
12:26 pm

I don’t want to move. I live in the USA, not the country of Georgia.

Normal

February 22nd, 2012
12:27 pm

“Citizens have two choices: Stay quiet or move? That’s just nuts.”

Jay,
Sounds like Communism, don’t it?

USinUK

February 22nd, 2012
12:27 pm

well said, Steve!

Mr. Snarky

February 22nd, 2012
12:27 pm

F. – Don’t like Obama’s policies?
Get the hell out!
You won’t be missed.

ty webb

February 22nd, 2012
12:28 pm

seems someone doesn’t know what communism is?…you’re not aloud to “move” out of communist states.

Jay

February 22nd, 2012
12:28 pm

There is no realistic question: If Roe v Wade is overturned, congressional Republicans will move immediately to ban the practice nationwide.

As proof, every one of the GOP presidential candidates has endorsed a federal Human Life Amendment that if enacted would outlaw abortion nationwide.

Towncrier

February 22nd, 2012
12:29 pm

I suppose there is not a better place to continue a discussion on the 9th Amendment than here. From yesterday:

Jay:

“They would not have ratified the Constitution without it, which tells you how important it was to them. It was not some redundant amendment that gave Congress the power to change the Constitution, a power it already had been granted elsewhere in the document.”

JHM:

“Those unemumerated rights exist *independent* of any Congressional legislation pertaining to them, and given the judicial branch’s express power to act as a check on Congress, there’s no justification whatsoever for claiming that the courts have to stand aside on the question of rights until Congress acts. SCOTUS can and has acted *ahead* of Congress in essentially saying ‘there’s a new right here, and you are not to intrude upon it, save in narrowly defined and specifically justifiable circumstances.Trusting the defense of our rights to Congress is a notably bad idea, and that’s why there’s a judicial branch in the first place.”

I believe the 9th Amendment pertains to rights and not powers (which the 10th already does). However, it cannot be known with any degree of certainty what rights are being referred to – state’s rights, individual’s rights or simply some “other” rights. Those, like you Jay, who want to argue that the 9th Amendment speaks to natural rights have the tremendous burden of proof to show why the framers did not simply include a passage in the Constitution securing those natural rights. Why? Because some of the state constitutions already had such language and there were at least 5 attempts to include a natural rights section in the Constitution itself that were defeated. So why would the framers implicitly and vaguely speak to these rights when they could have done so in an explicit manner??? THAT is the question you must answer, Jay.

The 9th Amendment leaves the status of unenumerated rights ambiguous. It does not “deny” or “disparage” these rights (whatever they are) but neither does it embrace or imply any specific right (where is the proof of this?).

Given this understanding, the SCOTUS is clearly in my view overreaching to establish specific rights that had not been articulated by the Constitution itself. There is simply not enough historical evidence to suppose that this is what the framers intended. The Bill of Rights were included by Anti-Federalists to ensure that governmental power would not encroach upon them. There is enough wiggle room in Article 1, section 8, (which enumerates governmental powers) to conceive of the government trampling all sorts of rights. That is what the Anti-Federalists were afraid of and something which Madison clearly saw.

As I have said, I see the 9th Amendment amendment as more of a disclaimer than anything, included to ensure that no one would suppose that there aren’t other unenumerated rights that may be enjoyed by the people. What those rights are the framers left uncertain. But to argue that they would have wanted the SCOTUS to decide that is nonsensical. If that were the case, they would have left out the Bill of Rights and simply state that the SCOTUS would have that function. But their conception of the SCOTUS was a far more limited one that we see now. They certainly did not envision the SCOTUS having the power to make de facto law. Look at some of the Founders expressed fears regarding the SCOTUS and you will see what I am saying.

ty webb

February 22nd, 2012
12:29 pm

and meant “allowed”…damn homophones!

Normal

February 22nd, 2012
12:29 pm

These “Anti-Abortions” Bills are just diversions by the GOP to hide the fact that they are weak on the economy and everything else common Georgians need.

Fred ™

February 22nd, 2012
12:30 pm

Jay, Did you get a hint for this topic from downstairs? :LOL:

RB from Gwinnett

February 22nd, 2012
12:30 pm

Is there a Christian with any morals at all left in the Democrat party??

I like how Jay discounts the scientists he disagrees with and follows the ones he agrees with around like a like a puppy chasing a dog in heat.

Fred ™

February 22nd, 2012
12:30 pm

Jay

February 22nd, 2012
12:30 pm

“Those, like you Jay, who want to argue that the 9th Amendment speaks to natural rights have the tremendous burden of proof to show why the framers did not simply include a passage in the Constitution securing those natural rights.

They did include such a passage, Crier. And it’s called the 9th Amendment.

Fred ™

February 22nd, 2012
12:31 pm

Ah……. the case of the script DOES matter

They BOTH suck

February 22nd, 2012
12:31 pm

Sinkwich hasn’t responded back because he is in the process of packing………… Since he doesn’t like Obama’s policies he is moving out of the country

Right Sinkwich?

Jefferson

February 22nd, 2012
12:31 pm

I doubt a law will prevent the behavior. So nothing will change.

Filter

February 22nd, 2012
12:32 pm

jm,
“The economy folks……. the economy. Focus. On. The. Economy.”

I am going to take the rest of the day off from work and go play golf. Two comments with which I agree fully. With miracles such as this happening I’m hoping this is my hole in one day. Or at least an eagle or two.

Bill Orvis White

February 22nd, 2012
12:33 pm

This is not about making ourselves Gods by any means. It’s about protecting those without a voice, the innocent. This is why a personhood amendment needs to be passed in all 50 states. We would solve the problem and move on to more pressing issues such as lowering and/or eliminating draconian taxes.
Amen,
Bill

They BOTH suck

February 22nd, 2012
12:33 pm

RB

“I like how Jay discounts the scientists he disagrees with and follows the ones he agrees with around like a like a puppy chasing a dog in heat.”

Guess you never watch Fox, read right leaning blogs or listen to right lean pundits…. They selectively pick and choose science everyday……..

Is that ok or only when it doesn’t fit your ideology?

mm

February 22nd, 2012
12:33 pm

If birth control were easily available and free, women wouldn’t need abortions.

Towncrier

February 22nd, 2012
12:33 pm

“Overturning R v W will not make abortions illegal.”

Unlike the SCOTUS (an unelected body of 9 person) making it de facto legal.

ty webb

February 22nd, 2012
12:33 pm

we really need a “coat hanger” reference…I only need one more spot for my daily “Lib talk Bingo Drinking Game”.

Jefferson

February 22nd, 2012
12:35 pm

You don’t “play” golf, you go golfing.

Towncrier

February 22nd, 2012
12:35 pm

“They did include such a passage, Crier. And it’s called the 9th Amendment.”

Is that all you have? What a lame response. Are you saying the difficulty I outlined for those of your position is insignificant in light of what I said?

Fred ™

February 22nd, 2012
12:37 pm

Jefferson

February 22nd, 2012
12:35 pm

You don’t “play” golf, you go golfing.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Good point. Wanna go golfing?

Filter

February 22nd, 2012
12:38 pm

“Is there a Christian with any morals at all left in the Democrat party??”

What an incredibly arrogant, judgmental and frankly unChristian statement to make. As adults are we not able to have differing opinions, different views of faith and morals without going back to the worn out contentions that the GOP is the party of God and all non-adherents to its tenents must certainly be immoral godless heathens????

Such arrogance is astounding and serves no purpose other than to prop up your fragile ego and drive people further away from the party you love so.

ty webb

February 22nd, 2012
12:39 pm

“If birth control were easily available and free”

check that, Bingo!…”free”.

scrappy

February 22nd, 2012
12:39 pm

“It is the essence of freedom to be able to make such decisions yourself, free of government dictate.”

If only we could keep repeating this, maybe our conservative “friends” would finally get it.

This election is a truly scaring me, and as a woman, I feel like every position the GOP takes is aimed right at me and taking away my choices. Well, no thank you.

Filter

February 22nd, 2012
12:40 pm

Jefferson,

You’ve never seen my “game”. I’m so bad that playing is being generous. A better description for me would be approximating golf. Or perhaps a nice walk in the park distributing golf balls to the woodland creatures and the water turtles.

Doggone/GA

February 22nd, 2012
12:41 pm

“If birth control were easily available and free, women wouldn’t need abortions”

No birth control method is infallable, not even abstinence…if the Mary’s experience is any indicator.

Towncrier

February 22nd, 2012
12:43 pm

““It is the essence of freedom to be able to make such decisions yourself, free of government dictate.” If only we could keep repeating this, maybe our conservative “friends” would finally get it.

Am I free to euthanize my grandmother who is senile then? The question is the sanctity of human life, born or unborn. If we could know with certainty if a fetus of a certain age was alive, would you bet your own life on the position it was not before you knew the truth?

They BOTH suck

February 22nd, 2012
12:44 pm

Normal @ 12:29

Bingo………. You get the Gold Star of the day……..

Wasn’t too many months ago that pundits from both-sides were saying that the election wouldn’t be about social issues……. Generally speaking the thought was that the “economy” would be a slam duck to hammer Obama. While the economy has a long way to go, it isn’t the slam dunk it once was, hence the social issues to shore up the social conservative vote…………..

I’m good with it………. It will not have moderates and independents flocking to vote for the nominee if that if social issues are in the forefront all the time. They may stay at home and not vote Obama, but social issues day in and day out………. will not win the WH for any Republican

Jay

February 22nd, 2012
12:44 pm

Crier, the purpose of the 9th could not be more clear. You can hem and haw and try to obfuscate all you wish, it does not matter. The 9th Amendment says point blank that human beings have rights beyond those actually listed in the Constitution.

Now where might those extra-constitutional rights emanate from? The only answer is that they are natural rights, inherent in us as human beings.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence of “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” that’s what he was referring to.

And as Founding Father George Mason wrote: “… all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch

February 22nd, 2012
12:44 pm

Oh good lord…not doing this again.

“Georgia anti-abortion bill strikes at heart of personal liberty” – The personal liberty to commit legalized-homicide. Love it! But only for women!

Jay

February 22nd, 2012
12:45 pm

Peadawg, I challenge you to listen to Ms. Zink’s testimony and THEN tell me that a law should strip her of the choice she made. Go ahead.

mm

February 22nd, 2012
12:45 pm

Ty,

“check that, Bingo!…”free”.”

So if it’s free, who pays for it? Should the drug companies give it away?

carlosgvv

February 22nd, 2012
12:47 pm

In America, those who oppose abortion the most are Catholics and the Protestant far-right. Both these groups are led by men with serious maturity issues. I wonder why so many citizens allow themselves to be instructed by these immature men?

Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch

February 22nd, 2012
12:48 pm

Jay,

Either make it homicide, or not.

Jay

February 22nd, 2012
12:48 pm

md, as I explain in the post, those numbers do not apply to abortions performed after 20 weeks.

So far, I see little evidence that people are engaging with the actual issue here, and are instead reverting to “Topic: Abortion; regurgitate pre-programmed arguments.”

Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch

February 22nd, 2012
12:49 pm

“remember that in the eyes of many this mother of two is a murderer” – a man is if he had caused it

ty webb

February 22nd, 2012
12:50 pm

I mean how sexist can those anti-abortion’ers be, what with trying to keep all future women from being aborted and all.

Towncrier

February 22nd, 2012
12:50 pm

“Crier, the purpose of the 9th could not be more clear.”

Really? How do you then explain the long and large controversy concerning its meaning? Just a bunch of misguided legal scholars and jurists who can’t see the truth in front of their eyes like you can? Such a glib statement is not becoming of you, my friend.

“You can hem and haw and try to obfuscate all you wish, it does not matter. The 9th Amendment says point blank that human beings have rights beyond those actually listed in the Constitution.”

Those, like you Jay, who want to argue that the 9th Amendment speaks to natural rights have the tremendous burden of proof to show why the framers did not simply include a passage in the Constitution securing those natural rights. Why? Because some of the state constitutions already had such language and there were at least 5 attempts to include a natural rights section in the Constitution itself that were defeated. So why would the framers implicitly and vaguely speak to these rights when they could have done so in an explicit manner???

Please answer this question, then.

Jay

February 22nd, 2012
12:50 pm

Well, the Ga. legislature says NOT, Pea. So on that basis, I take it you oppose this bill?

Thomas

February 22nd, 2012
12:50 pm

under a law stating that a fetus is viable when it has been in the womb for 24 weeks and medical testimony shows that it is viable, a driver who causes the death of the fetus might be charged with first-degree murder

such a complex question and there is no stance that does not contain hypocrisy

Stevie Ray

February 22nd, 2012
12:51 pm

JAY,

Thanks for a thoughtful article on this issue. What chaffs my butt is the amount of time, effort and our dollars at state and federal level that get consumed by this old argument. The state folks are now acting like kids in the sandbox with this childish vasectomy v abortion arguments. As time passes, we become more like European countries in the area of personal rights and the role of religion. Blows my mind how much effort will go to keep the (predominately Christians) relevant….Membership trend is sloping sharply down…

Stephenson Billings

February 22nd, 2012
12:51 pm

Wow, a lib worrying about personal liberty. has hell frozen over?

scrappy

February 22nd, 2012
12:53 pm

“The question is the sanctity of human life, born or unborn.”

And this where we will apparently forever disagree. Unborn and human life cannot be linked for the entire 9-10 months unless you agree with the ridiculous personhood at conception bullpucky.

Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch

February 22nd, 2012
12:53 pm

“Well, the Ga. legislature says NOT, Pea. So on that basis, I take it you oppose this bill?”

But in some states, it is. I support, in this case, a national amendment one way or another. Either it’s homicide, or it’s not.

Aquagirl

February 22nd, 2012
12:54 pm

Either make it homicide, or not.

Oh, the drama. How about answering my question from downstairs: are you willing to treat your body the same way? If someone else needs it to live, you have no legal right to object?

C’mon, men, let’s hear why you think someone should die because you hold the insane notion YOUR body belongs to YOU.

RB from Gwinnett

February 22nd, 2012
12:54 pm

“Such arrogance is astounding and serves no purpose other than to prop up your fragile ego and drive people further away from the party you love so.”

Sounds like you’d rather not hear opinions that don’t support your beliefs, filter. Isn’t that what you just fussed at me for? Not accepting differing opinions.

Just so we’re clear, Filter, I have no intentions of us ever “coming together” when it comes to your support of the murder of children. I won’t meet you half way, give a little, nothing. What you support is disgusting and I’ll have no part in it.

Jay

February 22nd, 2012
12:55 pm

So Pea, women who seek an abortion should be prosecuted as murderers, then?

The aforementioned Mrs. Zink is a murderer? What do you think, the electric chair or merely life without parole? Have you watched her statement yet?

Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch

February 22nd, 2012
12:55 pm

“are you willing to treat your body the same way?” – I can’t get pregnant, so whatever argument you’re trying to make doesn’t make sense.

md

February 22nd, 2012
12:55 pm

“According to the Guttmacher Institute, nine out of 10 abortions performed in the United States occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Most of those are unplanned, unwanted pregnancies that the mother chooses to terminate.”

There you go Adam…….directly counters your silliness from downstairs…….unless you don’t understand the term “most”.

Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch

February 22nd, 2012
12:56 pm

“So Pea, women who seek an abortion should be prosecuted as murderers, then?” – Men are charge with double homicide if they kill a pregnant woman. What the f*k is the difference?

Ennis

February 22nd, 2012
12:57 pm

To All bloggers… Just make a constitutional ammendment that says gubmnt can’t make any rules that go beyond the castle front door. That should keep the gubmnt our of bedrooms, living rooms and any other place in the family enviroment. Rick’s decision was his and his alone. If Rick even thinks he has the right to make any family decision that involves my family, he and I will take a walk out behind the barn

Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch

February 22nd, 2012
12:57 pm

Sorry, Jay. You’re not going to convince me that legalized-homicide is ok. You can try all you want.

Jerome Horwitz

February 22nd, 2012
12:58 pm

Don’t want an abortion don’t get one. Don’t force your fake morality on me.

This is about men controlling women – remember “If men could get prenant abortion would be a sacrament”.

Jay

February 22nd, 2012
12:58 pm

Crier, they did address it explicitly. It’s the Ninth Amendment. End of argument.

Doggone/GA

February 22nd, 2012
12:58 pm

“Men are charge with double homicide if they kill a pregnant woman. What the f*k is the difference?”

Ask the MEN who passed and signed those laws.

md

February 22nd, 2012
12:58 pm

OK Big Brother Jay…….what were you responding to @ 12:48?

Jay

February 22nd, 2012
1:01 pm

md, to your 12:44.

Those numbers do not apply to the bill in question or the issue at stake.

mm

February 22nd, 2012
1:01 pm

OK righties, enough is enough. You are not pro-life because you hate abortion, but then on the other hand support wars and the death penalty. A life is a life.

Abortion is legal.
Killing during wartime is legal.
Capital punishment is legal.

Your hypocrisy is astounding, they you never see it yourselves.

Towncrier

February 22nd, 2012
1:02 pm

“Crier, they did address it explicitly. It’s the Ninth Amendment. End of argument.”

Then I guess I won it, because you are being intellectually dishonest at this point.

Joe Hussein Mama

February 22nd, 2012
1:02 pm

Towncrier — “It does not “deny” or “disparage” these rights (whatever they are) but neither does it embrace or imply any specific right (where is the proof of this?).

I submit that your position does exactly that; denies rights. I further submit that your position argues for the public acknowledgement and approval of rights before they can even be said to exist.

“What those rights are the framers left uncertain. But to argue that they would have wanted the SCOTUS to decide that is nonsensical. If that were the case, they would have left out the Bill of Rights and simply state that the SCOTUS would have that function.”

I disagree; Congress’s power is explicitly limited, and nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to consider and then approve or deny putative rights. The Bill of Rights enumerates certain rights that the Founders thought important enough to deserve immediate mention, but the 9th Amendment makes clear that the list of guaranteed rights is by no means exhaustive. Your position appears to be that it *is* exhaustive, absent governmental action, and that position, sir, is much more easily refuted than my own.

“But their conception of the SCOTUS was a far more limited one that we see now. They certainly did not envision the SCOTUS having the power to make de facto law. Look at some of the Founders expressed fears regarding the SCOTUS and you will see what I am saying.”

Perhaps you’d favor us by pointing us to some of the specific language to which you refer? Be advised that three or more links in a post may cause it to be rejected by the autocensor.

Jay

February 22nd, 2012
1:03 pm

I’m just trying to see how consistent you want to be here, Pea.

Again, as someone who paid a “hitman” to kill her own child, as you see it, should Mrs. Zink be executed, or merely be sentenced to life without parole?

Aquagirl

February 22nd, 2012
1:04 pm

I can’t get pregnant, so whatever argument you’re trying to make doesn’t make sense.

Your body can be used by others via blood transfusion or organ donation. People die every day waiting, and no one can take any of those things without your consent.

But pregnancy only applies to women, and that’s different, right?

Keep running, boy. I can smell the dodge and it ain’t pleasant.

Doggone/GA

February 22nd, 2012
1:05 pm

“If that were the case, they would have left out the Bill of Rights and simply state that the SCOTUS would have that function.”

There was no Bill of Rights in the original Constitution for that very reason. There were many members of the Constitutional Convention who felt that to enumerate ANY rights would cause this VERY argument.

Adam

February 22nd, 2012
1:05 pm

Screw this. I’m going to FIND work to do now.

Have a happy time getting all hot and bothered under the collar over this, cons.

Towncrier

February 22nd, 2012
1:06 pm

“Abortion is legal. Killing during wartime is legal. Capital punishment is legal.”

Fetus’s are completely innocent. Soldiers and the leaders that initiate war are not. Murderers are not. Killing in all three ways is intentional. Killing civilians accidentally during war is not intentional. Does that clear it up for you?

Ennis

February 22nd, 2012
1:06 pm

Yes you can be prosecuted for murder if you kill a unborn child. I am a over the road truck driver and I can’t recall the specifics, but several years ago a truck driver was charged for manslaughter of 2 people, 1 a mother and the 2nd her unborn child. That’s a fact, and if I had the time and resources to locate the article I could give you undeniable proff.

Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch

February 22nd, 2012
1:06 pm

“I’m just trying to see how consistent you want to be here, Pea.” – No problem. I try to be consistent when it comes to homicide.

“Again, as someone who paid a “hitman” to kill her own child, as you see it, should Mrs. Zink be executed, or merely be sentenced to life without parole?” – That’d be up to a judge/jury.

Doggone/GA

February 22nd, 2012
1:07 pm

“Does that clear it up for you?”

Not if the stand against abortion is taken on the “sanctity of life” platform. Life is life. If life is sanctified, then that applies to ALL life…guilty or not.

TaxPayer

February 22nd, 2012
1:08 pm

Aw, come on Jay! Just because that there little fetus might be found to not have a brain — and hence make the perfect little conservative of the Republicna faith — or have its heart dangling outside its ear or have its eyeballs attached to extra appendages, that’s no reason whatsoever to not raise it and care for it and nurture and love it like it was gonna be able to live uninsured and uninsurable forever. I mean, we’re talking about a viable human life here! :roll:

Jm

February 22nd, 2012
1:08 pm

Jay 12:48

Welcome to your blog

Cramer

February 22nd, 2012
1:10 pm

Hmmmm. I wonder what the doctors said about Tim Tebow? They were wrong.

And I find it sad that Jay wants to discount doctor’s opinions because they are pro-life, but fully accepts the pro-abortion doctor opinions. No bias there.

You guys hide behind these handful of heartbreaking stories but truth be told, you are just trying to protect on demand after the fact birth control. I’m sure you guys lose sleep over the possibility that one day the GOP will agree to legal abortion for any of these unusual cases but ban the recreational sex, oops I forgot to buy a condom, abortions. Then you won’t be able to find these 2 or 3 sob stories.

Anyway, these moves are politically based and have no chance of passing. If anything, they may be aimed at steering GOP voters toward Romney hoping conservatives would rather fight Obama than the abortion battle right now.

In the end, you liberal’s kids right to terminate their babies for any reason whatsover will be protected.

md

February 22nd, 2012
1:11 pm

“You are not pro-life because you hate abortion, but then on the other hand support wars and the death penalty. A life is a life. ”

Never ceases to amaze me that folks can compare the most innocent of all life forms to wars and predators………..

md

February 22nd, 2012
1:12 pm

Jay…..that 12:44 was downstairs and in relation to another bogus comment…..that has since been claimed as bogus.

Doggone/GA

February 22nd, 2012
1:12 pm

“Never ceases to amaze me that folks can compare the most innocent of all life forms to wars and predators”

A life is a life

Jay

February 22nd, 2012
1:12 pm

Sadly well put, Taxpayer.

Joe Hussein Mama

February 22nd, 2012
1:12 pm

md — “Never ceases to amaze me that folks can compare the most innocent of all life forms to wars and predators………..”

Never ceases to amaze me that folks claim to be “pro-life” but are, at the same time, pro-death penalty and pro-war.

TaxPayer

February 22nd, 2012
1:13 pm

Never ceases to amaze me that folks can compare the most innocent of all life forms to wars and predators………..

Tell that to the innocent civilians blasted to a million pieces in Iraq.

Doggone/GA

February 22nd, 2012
1:15 pm

Psalm 51 – a foetus is innocent?

“5Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me”

Towncrier

February 22nd, 2012
1:15 pm

“Your body can be used by others via blood transfusion or organ donation. People die every day waiting, and no one can take any of those things without your consent. But pregnancy only applies to women, and that’s different, right?

A woman’s consent begins with unprotected, unmarried sex (a bad foundation for having a child), playing with fire thinking they are not going to get burned. An abortion in most cases is not about saving life; it is about taking life in order to avoid consequences. The only consolation I have presently is that I think an aborted child is better than a truly unwanted one.

DJ Sniper

February 22nd, 2012
1:15 pm

People, this is actually pretty simple: If you are personally opposed to abortion, then don’t have one, but stop trying to dictate what the next person should do. Your situation may be totally different from theirs.

Aquagirl

February 22nd, 2012
1:16 pm

folks can compare the most innocent of all life forms to wars and predators

Where did you think all those predators came from? They didn’t start as sacred egg-sperm unions?

Elmer Fudd

February 22nd, 2012
1:16 pm

Where are those whascally baby killers?