"The Big Lie"

[S-T]

I got this in an e-mail from the Center for BioEthical reform.

The Big Lie: Striking Down Roe Makes Abortion Illegal

Columbus, Ohio – January, 9, 2006 – Today in Washington, DC the confirmation hearings for Sam Alito begin. A common refrain from the left is “Alito could make abortion illegal by striking down Roe.” This is nothing other than a lie (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=625) perpetrated by those who want to whip up opposition to President Bush’s nominee and mischaracterize the abortion debate.

Lies and More Lies

Lie #1: If Roe was overturned it would make abortion illegal for all fifty states.

Truth: If the Supreme Court found Roe unconstitutional that would simply send abortion to back the states. Just as finding a right to abortion in the constitution is anti-thetical to a strict interpretation of the constitution, so is, most likely for these justices, finding the right to life for the unborn. A human life amendment is still the end game to ban abortion nation wide.

Lie # 2: Alito could vote to “make abortion illegal.”

Truth: No one man can “make abortion illegal.” However, Legislatures can do that. Also, Alito is only one vote of nine. Again, striking down Roe at the Supreme Court level does not outlaw abortion for all fifty states. Even if it did Alito would need 4 other justices to join him in the decision.

Media outlets are repeating the false information in order to scare the American people. Frankly I wish it were easier to outlaw abortion, but it isn’t. The battle over the appointments to the Supreme Court is just one skirmish in the overall war.

Attached is the newest Harris (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=625) poll that perpetuates the lie that striking down Roe outlaws abortion.

The Abortion End Game

The only way to outlaw abortion entirely is to pass a Constitutional amendment protecting the unborn. That requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate to propose the amendment and 3/4 of the states to ratify it. For this reason the Center for Bio Ethical Reform (http://www.cbrinfo.org/CBRMidwest) is spending much of its resources in the key states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

Striking down Roe is job one but there is much to do after that takes place. Please write letters to your local paper clearing up the misconception that striking down Roe outlaws abortion. We cannot allow those who want to kill babies to lie to the American people.

Support a Test Case Against Roe

The Ohio Abortion Ban (http://www.ohioabortionban.com/) (HB 228) provides the necessary constitutional challenge to Roe that could result in sending the abortion issue back to the states.

If you reside in Ohio contact your legislators (http://www.house.state.oh.us/graphics/map/h_nav.map?27,59) in regard to HB 228.

Mark Harrington is the Executive Director of CBR Midwest (http://www.markharringtonlive.com/main/index.php?option=displaypage&Itemid=57&op=page&SubMenu=), and hosts Mark Harrington Live (http://www.markharringtonlive.com/) which reaches 80 of Ohio's 88 counties.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

For this reason the Center for Bio Ethical Reform (http://www.cbrinfo.org/CBRMidwest) is spending much of its resources in the key states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

:thumb: There is a good pro-life grass-roots community in Florida!

[Tumblehome]

I actually know a number of pro-choicers who support overturning Roe v Wade. It was badly decided. As simple as that.

[Warlady]

Abortion should never have been left up to the feds. It's a states rights issue and should be returned to the people to decide. I pray Alito gets through because he has said the same exact thing in the past.

[S-T]

Abortion should never have been left up to the feds. It's a states rights issue and should be returned to the people to decide.
I disagree (http://scott.sstibbs.com/blog/2005_03_15_abortion.html).

[Warlady]

S-T so it is your position that states (therefore people) can't decide for themselves? Shame on you. I trust the American people to be able to make these important decisions.

[Republican_Legion]

Abortion should never have been left up to the feds. It's a states rights issue and should be returned to the people to decide. I pray Alito gets through because he has said the same exact thing in the past.

It should be a states issue like it once was. SCOTUS slammed its Iron Fights at states and imposed its opinion on abortion to the people and SCOTUS has done it again with eminent domain. SCOTUS will continue to attack Civil rights until there is 5 conservatives on the court.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I must respectfully dissent from the state's rights stance, myself -- with a condition.

First, my position: The right to life is found in the very first document associated with the founding of this country.

It is a right that is
1) a self-evident right, (crystal clear, no ambiguity, absolute)

2) an equal right, (ALL human life is equal, regardless of stage of development, disability, infirmity, gender, race, ethnicity)

3) an endowed right, endowed by the Creator (NOT granted, bestowed, or endowed by man, therefore not eligible to be altered by man, other than the one whose life it is)

4) a certain right, (specfic, fixed, indisputable)

5) an unalienable right (incapable of being alienated, transferred, negated, separated, terminated)

That said, it is a right that should be federally protected because it was federally recognized (foundationally to the creation of this country), documented and recorded that ALL men (not just Americans, not just those that traveled through the birth canal, not just those who are mentally stable, not just those who are socially acceptable, not just those who are physically capable -- but ALL men/women) are endowed with the right to life.

If you parse the three rights separately, notice the right to life is listed first, ergo it can only be defined as the right to exist, as the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness deal with HOW that life is lived, not the right to life itself. We have an ultimate right to exist, to be born, to develop through our stages of life from natural beginning to natural end.

Now, for my condition: I recognize that it is probably next to impossible to believe that there will ever be submitted, much less passed, an amendment upholding the sanctity of life. I believe that toothpaste can never be put back into the tube. The very best we can hope for, the very best we could possibly achieve, is to send it back to the states and pray earnestly that THEY will do the right thing in upholding the foundation right to life established at the founding of this country.

That is my honest opinion.

[True American]

What I find most amusing about this big lie is this:
The US Supreme Court isn't typically in the business of overturning it's own decisions. Liberals use this one possible but very improbable issue to attempt to deny a seat to a brilliant justice. It's not as though any new person on the bench is going to make it their first rule of business to overturn a Supreme Court ruling.

I'm sure it was the farthest thing from Alito's mind until the libs brought it up. If anything, he would now vote against it in spite. I know I would! LOL

[S-T]

S-T so it is your position that states (therefore people) can't decide for themselves? That is exactly my position. This isn't something to be voted on at all. You don't let people vote on whether or not murder should be legal. Shame on you for saying it should be up for a vote.

And :claps: to what HomeSchooler said.

More here: http://scott.sstibbs.com/blog/2005_03_15_abortion.html

[Melz]

I must agree with S-T and Hms, this is one issue that shouldn't need a vote. Unfortunately, if left up to a vote, many places will vote that murdering babies is OKAY. I say we as a country make that NOT OKAY!!!

[Republican_Legion]

I must respectfully dissent from the state's rights stance, myself -- with a condition.

First, my position: The right to life is found in the very first document associated with the founding of this country.

It is a right that is
1) a self-evident right, (crystal clear, no ambiguity, absolute)

2) an equal right, (ALL human life is equal, regardless of stage of development, disability, infirmity, gender, race, ethnicity)

3) an endowed right, endowed by the Creator (NOT granted, bestowed, or endowed by man, therefore not eligible to be altered by man, other than the one whose life it is)

4) a certain right, (specfic, fixed, indisputable)

5) an unalienable right (incapable of being alienated, transferred, negated, separated, terminated)

That said, it is a right that should be federally protected because it was federally recognized (foundationally to the creation of this country), documented and recorded that ALL men (not just Americans, not just those that traveled through the birth canal, not just those who are mentally stable, not just those who are socially acceptable, not just those who are physically capable -- but ALL men/women) are endowed with the right to life.

If you parse the three rights separately, notice the right to life is listed first, ergo it can only be defined as the right to exist, as the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness deal with HOW that life is lived, not the right to life itself. We have an ultimate right to exist, to be born, to develop through our stages of life from natural beginning to natural end.

Now, for my condition: I recognize that it is probably next to impossible to believe that there will ever be submitted, much less passed, an amendment upholding the sanctity of life. I believe that toothpaste can never be put back into the tube. The very best we can hope for, the very best we could possibly achieve, is to send it back to the states and pray earnestly that THEY will do the right thing in upholding the foundation right to life established at the founding of this country.

That is my honest opinion.

You are right, this is an exception because of the part of the constitution that says: LIFE Liberty and Happyness.
My understanding of it is : First comes life as it is neccasery to have in order to have liberty as you cant have liberty without being alive. Liberty comes before happyness as you cant be happy with no libertys.

So since it is in the constitution that Life is guarented first, Abortion is a violation of the constitutions guarentee of 'Life' to the unborn humans.

[DesertFox]

A minor note: The Constitution says nothing about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence does.

[Warlady]

S-T the feds have been chipping away at states rights for decades. It never should have become federal law. The people should have the right to decide. Not 9 justices in their ivory tower. I believe Alito will be confirmed and for the first time we have a chance to have Roe overturned. One of the Republican Senators just stated that the Supreme Court has overturned their own decisions over 170 times in its history. I'm very excited about the prospect of Roe being tossed. Then it will be up to the people to elect pro-life legislators. When that happens there will boo koos (sp?) of Democrats claiming to switch to pro-life. Every poll I've seen on the subject show overwhelmingly that a majority believes that abortion should be tightly regulated...not a means of birth control.

[Warlady]

S-T the feds have been chipping away at states rights for decades. It never should have become federal law. The people should have the right to decide. Not 9 justices in their ivory tower. I believe Alito will be confirmed and for the first time we have a chance to have Roe overturned. One of the Republican Senators just stated that the Supreme Court has overturned their own decisions over 170 times in its history. I'm very excited about the prospect of Roe being tossed. Then it will be up to the people to elect pro-life legislators. When that happens there will boo koos (sp?) of Democrats claiming to switch to pro-life. Every poll I've seen on the subject show overwhelmingly that a majority believes that abortion should be tightly regulated and not a means of birth control as it is now. 70% believe PBA should be outlawed.

[S-T]

S-T the feds have been chipping away at states rights for decades.
Yes, In know that. The feds have been chipping away at states rights since Fort Sumter. As my Robert E. Lee avatar and the Jefferson Davis quote in my signature indicates, I'm a strong supporter of states rights. However, there are some things the states should not have the right to decide. Fundamental constitutional rights fall under that category.
It never should have become federal law. The people should have the right to decide.
OK, so if "the people" decide they want to make it legal to lynch blacks, would you support that under states' rights, or would you argue that the federal government should intervene to make sure blacks have equal protection under the law, per the 14th Amendment? There are states, like New York and California, where "the people" will vote to keep child-murder legal. They should not have the right to do that.

70% want PBA banned? That's great, but over 90% of babies murdered are murdered in the first trimester. I'm all for banning PBA, but at the end of the day banning PBA accomplishes virtually nothing. The slaughter of millions will continue unabated while a few lives are saved on the fringes.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Warlady:
S-T so it is your position that states (therefore people) can't decide for themselves? Shame on you.

:unsmile: Shame on me, too. No state (therefore its people) should be able to choose legalized abortion. If a state legalized rape, would you agree with that?

I trust the American people to be able to make these important decisions.

:unsmile: Would you trust a state that would elect Swillary to the Senate? I don't. And New York babies have just as much right to live as any others.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Warlady:
...boo koos (sp?)...

:unsmile: "Beaucoups".

[S-T]

Would you trust a state that would elect Swillary to the Senate? I don't. And New York babies have just as much right to live as any others.Right. I don't believe in direct democracy, nor do I believe in a representative republic, for that very reason. A constitutional republic like we have is far superior. Human beings, by our very nature, are sick and depraved and cannot be trusted.