Can SCOTUS Sustain Abortion on Demand?
Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton may be enshrined as the law of the land (in my opinion these decisions were a destructive distortion of our Constitution by activist justices intent on imposing their own personal beliefs), but the American public does not buy abortion-on-demand according to all the polls I have seen – including these most recent ones:
EWTN.com
Washington DC, Jan 26, 2007 (CNA).- “A new CBS News poll has found that a majority of Americans want to prohibit abortions in all or most cases or want greater restrictions. The poll results are consistent with the results of a 2006 poll, reported LifeNews.com.
According to the poll, 47 percent of Americans want to prohibit all or most abortions and 16 percent want them to be greatly restricted.
About 30 percent of those polled want to limit abortions to the very rare cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Twelve percent want abortions allowed only when the pregnancy threatens the mother's life. Five percent said abortions should always be illegal. Only 31 percent of those polls want to permit abortion in all cases.
The poll was conducted from Jan. 18 to 21 and it surveyed 1,168 adults nationwide.
The CBS poll is backed-up by other recent polls, such as one by Zogby, which found that 69 percent of voters think that federal funds should not be used for abortions.
69 percent also support parental notification for girls 16 or younger and 55 percent say the notification law should apply to girls 18 and younger.
Zogby also found 56 percent of Americans back a 24-hour waiting period on abortion, 64 percent would charge criminals with a second crime for killing or injuring an unborn child in the course of an attack on a pregnant woman, and 69 percent don't want their tax money to pay for abortions or promoting abortion in other nations, according to LifeNews.
A third poll, conducted by Newsweek in November 2006 found the number of pro-life Americans rose 5 percent while the number of Americans who support abortion fell four percent compared to a previous poll it conducted in 2005.” EWTN News
If President Bush gets an opportunity to appoint another conservative to the Supreme Court, and that person gets a fair hearing for a change, we may see this issue finally go back to the states where questions of morality should be decided. While I am personally opposed to abortion-on-demand and to the Roe v. Wade decision, I would work at the state level to ensure first trimester abortions were without limitation in my state, because I don’t want us to go back to the horrors of back alley abortions for desperate young women. On the other hand, if a majority of my state’s voters disagreed with me, I would accept that judgment because that’s the way a republic form of democracy is supposed to work.
Labels: Abortion
posted by RussWilcox @ 4:44 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
For all: each year we have an anti-abortion march here in Washington DC on or close to the anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision.
WE republished this on the web today because of your essay:
http://johnib.wordpress.com/2007/02/11/why-do-they-%e2%80%9cmarch-for-life%e2%80%9d-today/
John E. Carey
Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton allows abortion now up to the 9th month.
From a conservative point of view let's look at Non Religious and Non Political reasons to ban all but Mother's Health issue abortions.
Let's challenge Democrats and UNIONS to question why destroying 1.5 million "Consumers" for Union Made Products should be endorsed by most Labor Unions.
Just look at the Baby Food Industry and related businesses from farmers, bottle makers, label makers, transportation, to distribution and logistics.
Assuming a infant eats 4 jars of baby food per day, that's about 5 million jars NOT NEEDED.
Let some number cruncher figure out the rest for us, an then move into so many other areas of the Economy that are hurt by this issue.
As an educator, I could never figure out why the NEA and AFT back abortion for every 30 infants aborted that ONE LESS TEACHER JOB needed. As folks get laid off for reduction in Force issues reflect on the Union support.
Today I heard someone say that France is looking to pay folks a bonus to have children as a potential way to push up the population and deal with the growing influx of Islam.
Finally, let's ponder the "Judgement" of the late Fr. Robert Drinan who was a key person in the "conversion" of the Democratic party from Pro-Life to Pro-Abortion. ( I refuse to use the term Pro-Choice out of respect for the Human who get's slaughtered)
What I find interesting is how often polls tell people that Roe only allows abortion for the first three months, then implies that the abortions are for medical indications by inserting something like "between a woman and her doctor" so that they can claim that most Americans support Roe. But really, all they prove is that most Americans support medically-indicated first trimester abortions.
You are correct is your statement "...that is the way a republic democracy is supposed to work." however, doesn't the constitution state "...Life, liberty and justice for all." I don't know about you, but I think an unborn baby deserves a chance too at Life, liberty and justice too. After all, aren't unborn babies human too? Just a thought.
I think it ludicrous to attack abortion based on the potential buying habits or eating habits of those fetuses aborted. This brings a new low to that arguement. Whether you agree or disagree on abortion, it is about the life of the infant and the life of the mother and family ONLY.
Steve,
You missed my point completely about the impact of abortion on Economics. We have liberal groups and Unions that fight the loss of jobs for their Union Workers.
I spoke in front of the National Education Association in Washington DC and in St. Paul at their national convention and was booed, when I stated that for ever 30 babies aborted a teacher loses a job.
Yet the same NEA also declares a concern about the loss of Jobs to OUtsourcing, etc. The point is that most folks who are Pro-Life tend to use Religious Argument that opponents can simply say "Don't force your religious views on me..." or Scientific reasons and go in circles defining when "True Life begins", (the reality is the embryo has everything to GROW further, except nutrition provided by the mother.
The point is that over my years of teaching, I've seen people with 15 years of Teaching Experience LOSE JOBS because of a LACK of STUDENTS in the community. RIF (Reduction in Force takes over). My contention is a reality that since 1973 over 40 Million humans have been taken from the planet and therefore divide by 30 (average class size) and over 1.3 million TEACHING JOBS have been lost. Gee am I glad my Union supports that policy.
We can easily translate that same concept to any business that sells product to families for infants.
Again, you may not be Pro-Life and can't deal with this reality that is a "secondary effect" of Abortion on Demand including SEX SELECTION ABORTION in the USA up to the 9th Month. I'll gladly send you a video called "Eclipse of Reason" for your review if you'd like.
I reject the term pro life. Everyone is pro life.
It seems a term made up by abortion opponents to bias the arguement before the arguement begins.
I did not miss the point of your arguement at all, rather it has no merit in this arguement whether factual or not. It may well be true, but it's moot...because the arguement is not a financial one regardless of the financial impact.
The same first amendment that gives you the right to reject the term pro-life gives me the right to reject the term Pro-Choice which definitely fits your definition of a carefully crafted word to set the media agenda of that movement.
To those who have lost jobs because of declining sales in certain businesses directly impacted by the increase in the abortion industry, that financial reality is a Fact. Again, you have a right to disagree but the tone of your arguement clearly follows the tendancy of the liberal left that only their way of thinking is acceptable. All other points of view are not acceptable.
When the Muslims come knocking on your door someday imposing the same kind of "My way or death" theology, please tell me your response to that person, who most likely will be a Man and not a woman.
Keep the Faith,
I try to myself,
Huh?
First, not that I disagree but I never said pro choice...
Second, I did not reject your arguement or disagree with it...only stated in my opinion that it had no relevance in the painful decision to get an abortion or not.
Third, I have no clue what point you are making regarding the Muslim
either as it relates to this discussion, or as to how it matters whether male or female. Sorry, you went over my head.
Post a Comment
<< Home