NARAL "out of step"

[S-T]

NARAL's Report Out of Step with the American People (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR05L05)

December 16, 2005 - Friday

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 16, 2005 CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Bethanie Swendsen, (202) 393-2100

"Once again, NARAL has shown just how detached they are from reality." ~ FRC Vice President for Government Affairs, Connie Mackey

Washington, D.C. - Yesterday, NARAL Pro-Choice America released their report regarding Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. Family Research Council (FRC) Vice President for Government Affairs Connie Mackey released the following statement:

"Once again, NARAL has shown just how detached they are from reality. Judge Alito's confirmation hearing has not even taken place and without a fair hearing they have already condemned him.

"NARAL and their extreme liberal allies repeatedly attempt to redefine what mainstream America stands for, but polls tracking the pulse of America state otherwise. For example, Americans continue to support basic restrictions on abortion, such as parental consent. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll last month showed 69% of adults support the right of parental consent regarding their child's abortion.

"It should be noted that NARAL was one among many fringe organizations which strongly opposed the nomination of John Roberts to Chief Justice. Applying an abortion litmus test to one of our nation's most highly qualified judicial nominees reveals that NARAL and their liberal allies are blindly driven by an extreme abortion agenda."
:claps:

[DeclinetoState]

Dear Senator,

As your constituent, I am urging you to oppose the nomination of anti-choice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court has been a legal architect who spent years working to dismantle fundamental protections guaranteed under Roe v. Wade. If Alito replaces Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court will shift in a direction that jeopardizes the fundamental values of freedom and privacy that a vast majority of Americans want protected.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/

Make a few minor changes and send it to your Senator. I would, but both of California's feminazis--er, U.S. Senators--are beyond hope.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

There IS no right to abortion ANYWHERE within the Constitution, and the "so-called" right to privacy isn't in there (per se) either. I would encourage each and every person that reads this post to get a copy (beg, borrow, buy, get from the library) Mark R. Levin's book Men In Black, and pay particular attention to chapter four, Death By Privacy.

[DeclinetoState]

There IS no right to abortion ANYWHERE within the Constitution, and the "so-called" right to privacy isn't in there (per se) either.Actually, there is a "right to privacy," but it's implied, not explicitly stated, and certainly not as extensive as the so-called justices of the SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade and earlier made it to be.

[Timberwolf]

And WHERE, praytell, does this "right to privacy" exist?

Short answer? In the minds of liberal, activist judges and nowhere else.

[Maggie_T]

Yup. The same place where the 2nd Amendment, and the word 'militia', does not apply to all American citizens. :rolleyes:

[DesertFox]

I agree with DTS. There is indeed an implied right to privacy in the 4A, reinforced by the 10A. Liberals, as usual, have stretched this out of all rational understanding in order to damage the country.

No right is absolute. All have limits. But the limits have to be consistent with a sympathetic grasp of what the Founders had in mind. They never had abortion in mind, just as they never had any vague notion of banning God from the public square.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

An "implied" right requires the honesty of the one(s) lending the dissemination and interpretation to the implication. Who do we give the authority of interpretation to the scope of the implication? It's been proven we certainly cannot trust the conclusion of the Supreme Court.

There may be a hint, an implication if you will, toward a right, but until that right is spelled out, clear and concise, in the Bill of Rights, an implied right, is no right at all -- it's too ephemeral, ambiguous, and amorphous.

[DesertFox]

Well, I'd say an implied right is a right if it makes clear sense. It makes no sense to talk about "penumbras" and "emanations of penumbras." Go that route and anything at all becomes a right.

[BarkleUSA]

…seems to me that because the Constitution is rather vague then its meaning is whatever the SCOTUS says it means.

For example, let’s say Congress passes a Defense of Marriage Amendment – “Marriage shall be between one man and one woman.” There will be liberal judges that undoubtedly will “find” that what it really means is one man to one man or one woman to one woman – but that heterosexual marriage is forbidden.

In a similar way, the phrase “Congress shall pass no law restricting the free expression of religion” has been interpreted as “Religious expression is forbidden”. Or the phase “Secure the blessings of life” has been interpreted as “Secure the blessings of killing unborn babies”. Or the “Right to keep and bear arms” implies “The Government can impose gun control.”

Therefore, the Constitution is of no particular relevance if we appoint judges that don’t read it (Ginsburg for example).