Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment XIV - Section 1. - All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law (Sections 2 - 5 not applicable).
I'm not a First Amendment absolutist; only extremists are. The Amendment, as literally written, and modified for punctuation, says, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." Even strict constructionists recognize libel laws, slander laws, and prohibitions against yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The First Amendment right to free speech is not absolute.
I'm not a Second Amendment absolutist; only extremists are. I think States can deny its citizens howitzers if the PEOPLE pass such a law. A person that wants a howitzer cannot prevail against the State by proclaiming a Second Amendment protection. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not absolute.
I'm not a fourteenth Amendment absolutist; only extremists are. Somewhere in the language above, the U.S. Supreme Court created a right to abortion. Okay, maybe the extremely brilliant (or heavily intoxicated or high) can find the right to abortion in the language, but just for fun, let's say the Constitution explicitly mentioned the right to abortion. Does anyone think by the time the Framers got to Amendment XIV they would have arrived at a right that was "absolute"? Of course not. Only an idiot or an ideologue would think so. If the PEOPLE want to make a law restricting when a woman (or a little girl!) can "elect" an abortion, they can. They simply can. If the very first Amendment, the very first right the Framers wanted to guarantee to its citizenry, is not absolute, if the very next Amendment, the second right the Framers wanted to guarantee, is not absolute, then a manufactured right in the Fourteenth Amendment is most definitely not absolute.
If the PEOPLE want to prohibit partial-birth abortions, the law prohibiting is not unconstitutional; the U.S. Supreme Court recently announced it would hear the challenge to the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. If the PEOPLE want to require parental notification prior to an abortion for girls that cannot legally drive a car, buy a pack of cigarettes, or buy a beer, the law requiring is not unconstitutional. If the PEOPLE, suspecting statutory rape, want to require abortion providers to provide data on underage girls seeking abortions for the purpose of prosecuting a statutory rapist, the law requiring is not unconstitutional. If the PEOPLE require abortion providers to be formally trained, the law requiring is not constitutional.
Of course, my position is there is no constitutional right to abortion. But, if the PEOPLE want to permit it, they can. Make an argument and convince the State Legislature and the Governor. If the PEOPLE want to ban it, they can. And as we all know from reading this space, elections matter. If you're not happy with the direction of any law, try to elect representatives that agree with your position.
Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment XIV - Section 1. - All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law (Sections 2 - 5 not applicable).
I'm not a First Amendment absolutist; only extremists are. The Amendment, as literally written, and modified for punctuation, says, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." Even strict constructionists recognize libel laws, slander laws, and prohibitions against yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The First Amendment right to free speech is not absolute.
I'm not a Second Amendment absolutist; only extremists are. I think States can deny its citizens howitzers if the PEOPLE pass such a law. A person that wants a howitzer cannot prevail against the State by proclaiming a Second Amendment protection. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not absolute.
I'm not a fourteenth Amendment absolutist; only extremists are. Somewhere in the language above, the U.S. Supreme Court created a right to abortion. Okay, maybe the extremely brilliant (or heavily intoxicated or high) can find the right to abortion in the language, but just for fun, let's say the Constitution explicitly mentioned the right to abortion. Does anyone think by the time the Framers got to Amendment XIV they would have arrived at a right that was "absolute"? Of course not. Only an idiot or an ideologue would think so. If the PEOPLE want to make a law restricting when a woman (or a little girl!) can "elect" an abortion, they can. They simply can. If the very first Amendment, the very first right the Framers wanted to guarantee to its citizenry, is not absolute, if the very next Amendment, the second right the Framers wanted to guarantee, is not absolute, then a manufactured right in the Fourteenth Amendment is most definitely not absolute.
If the PEOPLE want to prohibit partial-birth abortions, the law prohibiting is not unconstitutional; the U.S. Supreme Court recently announced it would hear the challenge to the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. If the PEOPLE want to require parental notification prior to an abortion for girls that cannot legally drive a car, buy a pack of cigarettes, or buy a beer, the law requiring is not unconstitutional. If the PEOPLE, suspecting statutory rape, want to require abortion providers to provide data on underage girls seeking abortions for the purpose of prosecuting a statutory rapist, the law requiring is not unconstitutional. If the PEOPLE require abortion providers to be formally trained, the law requiring is not constitutional.
Of course, my position is there is no constitutional right to abortion. But, if the PEOPLE want to permit it, they can. Make an argument and convince the State Legislature and the Governor. If the PEOPLE want to ban it, they can. And as we all know from reading this space, elections matter. If you're not happy with the direction of any law, try to elect representatives that agree with your position.
posted by Zack at 6:50 PM
3 Comments:
Once again your points are excellent- so logical and quite impossible to refute regardless of one's personal stand on abortion.
you neocons are frightening...
Well, although I agree with much of where you end up, as usual, you are (not)ZacklyRight -- and in getting to your conclusions, you stretch your points beyond where they can take you, and therefore become the extremist you posit others to be.
In particular, any time the Supreme Court holds a law to be unconstitutional, it is by definition overturning something the PEOPLE (through their elected representatives) presumably wanted. While TJefferson may have agreed that that's a bad thing, since the Marshall court and Madison v. Marbury, the Supreme Court's right to declare acts of Congress and state legislatures unconstitutional has been firmly established. Indeed, the opening words of the Constitution you hold dear are "We the PEOPLE, in order to form a more perfect UNION, ..." -- to form a more perfect UNION, the PEOPLE gave up some of their rights to a tri-partite, representative form of government. So, your argument is way overbroad, you need to find another, principled reason why the rulings striking down abortion restrictions as unconstitutional are wrong, other than the fact that it is contrary to the PEOPLE'S will as expressed through their elected representatives. The fact that (as you say) there is nothing in the 14th amendment on which to base a so-called right to abortion, other than the amorphous and unsustainable "penumbra" of the amendment; that the right of an as yet unborn baby not to have his/her life ended should not be based on the state of medical technology at the time of his/her conception (just as a 4-month old baby/fetus may not have been "viable" in the 15th century but is now, a 1-month old baby/fetus may not be "viable" today, but could be in one year, five years, a decade or a century from now); and that laws requiring a mother to carry her unborn baby to term is little different than laws that obligate her to care for and feed her child the day after he/she is born, and that she not otherwise endanger the life of her child -- would all be good places to start.
Post a Comment
<< Home