RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: No, Abortion Isn't A Constitutional Right - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

No, Abortion Isn't A Constitutional Right Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Liz 

  • ***-----------***
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 51,339
  • Joined: 28-February 03

  Posted 22 May 2019 - 12:33 AM

No, Abortion Isn't A Constitutional Right

RealClearPolitics
By Ben Shapiro
May 22, 2019

Excerpt:

In the past several weeks, a bevy of states have passed extensive new restrictions on abortion. Alabama has effectively banned abortion from point of conception. Georgia has banned abortion from the time a heartbeat is detected, as have Ohio, Kentucky and Mississippi. Missouri has banned abortion after eight weeks. Other states are on the move as well.

This has prompted paroxysms of rage from the media and the political left -- the same folks who celebrated when New York passed a law effectively allowing abortion up until point of birth and who defended Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam's perverse statements about late-term abortion. According to these thinkers, conservatives have encroached on a supposed "right to abortion" inherent in the Constitution.

This, of course, is a lie. There is no "right to abortion" in the Constitution. The founders would have been appalled by such a statement. The Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) is a legal monstrosity by every available metric: As legal scholar John Hart Ely wrote, Roe "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." The court's rationale is specious; the court relied on the ridiculous precedent in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) that a broad "right to privacy" can be crafted from "penumbras, formed by emanations." Then the court extended that right to privacy to include the killing of a third party, an unborn human life -- and overrode state definitions of human life in the process.

How? The court relied on the self-contradictory notion of "substantive due process" -- the belief that a law can be ruled unconstitutional under the Fifth and 14th amendments so long as the court doesn't like the substance of the law. That's asinine, obviously. The due process provision of both amendments was designed to ensure that state and federal government could not remove life, liberty or property without a sufficient legal process, not to broadly allow courts to strike down state definitions of conduct that justify removal of life, liberty and property. As Justice Clarence Thomas has written, "The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause is not a 'secret repository of substantive guarantees against "unfairness."'"

Nonetheless, the notion that such a right to abortion is enshrined in America's moral fabric has taken hold among the intelligentsia. Thus, we now experience the odd spectacle of those on the political left declaring that the Constitution enshrines a right to abortion -- yet does not include a right to bear arms, a right to freedom of political speech, a right to retain property free of government seizure or a right to practice religion.

*snip*

Full Commentary
0

#2 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,800
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 22 May 2019 - 12:53 AM

View PostLiz, on 22 May 2019 - 12:33 AM, said:

Nonetheless, the notion that such a right to abortion is enshrined in America's moral fabric has taken hold among the intelligentsia. Thus, we now experience the odd spectacle of those on the political left declaring that the Constitution enshrines a right to abortion -- yet does not include a right to bear arms, a right to freedom of political speech, a right to retain property free of government seizure or a right to practice religion.


Yup, things that actually ARE spelled out very carefully and unmistakably in the constitution are constantly abused by the left. But abortion, a "right" found nowhere in the constitution, they defend tooth and nail.

<_<
0

#3 User is offline   NH Populist 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 1,432
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 22 May 2019 - 07:46 AM

I can't remember exactly how the bill was worded, but gist of it was to stop abortions after delivery and related to Gov. Northam's assurance that babies left on the table after delivery would be "kept comfortable" 'til they die. Every Democrat Senator voted to oppose that bill! And NH Senator, pompous ass Jeanne Shaheen railing about "Extremists" on the Right passing laws against abortion. Sickening that both women Senators from NH, both mothers BTW, could be this morally bankrupt...

This post has been edited by NH Populist: 22 May 2019 - 07:47 AM

0

#4 User is offline   Confessor 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 283
  • Joined: 04-February 09

Posted 22 May 2019 - 10:29 AM

There is no right to murder unborn children, even if they are in YOUR womb, in the United States Constition. However, the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is in there. Why do you think the baby killers work so hard to dehumanize the unborn? If they are just “lumps of flesh, no more than tumors”, they have no rights. Too bad the mothers of the abortion supporters didn’t take advantage of killing their babies. Roe v. Wade would have been overturned a long time ago. Everyone on the face of the earth was an unborn at one time. Murdering the innocent is surely inviting God’s judgment on this country.

“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.” - Thomas Jefferson
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users