Gillibrand: Anti-abortion laws 'against Christian faith'

[Jazzhead]

Thou shall not kill
Thou shall not lie

What I'd like to see a Democrat say is yes, abortion may be legal, but it is morally wrong.   Bill Clinton came closest, when he declared that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

What happened to the rare part?    The procedure is practically celebrated these days by the Dems, who seek to fund it, encourage it,  and ensure that even those who survive it can be conveniently disposed of.    There is a principled position that concedes a woman's liberty,  but urges that she do the right thing. 

That is what is missing from the Dems' current rhetoric, and it is why they are morally bankrupt.     

[roamer_1]

"If you are a person of the Christian faith, one of the tenants of our faith is free will. One of the tenants of our democracy is that we have a separation of church and state, and under no circumstances are we supposed to be imposing our faith on other people. And I think this is an example of that effort," Gillibrand said.

Thou. Shalt. NOT. Kill.

[Sanguine]

I don't  want a justice who will be against abortion.  I want a justice who will simply follow the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.

 

[Jazzhead]

I don't  want a justice who will be against abortion.  I want a justice who will simply follow the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.

But to overturn Roe now,  after 40 years of women relying on the liberty it protects, would be the height of "legislating from the bench".   The inhibition of such action lies behind the concept of "stare decisis". 

 Yes,  there are occasional Court decisions that do not match the political mood of the nation.   And if Roe is not one of them,  the solution is to amend the Constitution to provide that a fetus has the same Constitutional rights and protections as a born citizen.   Then you can declare first trimester abortion to be murder and lock up a few million women per year. 

Legislation requires the action of legislators, not courts.   What's that you say - there's no stomach to lock up few million women each year for murder?   Then try the route of persuasion rather than conversion and don't enlist the Courts to do your dirty work for you.   

[roamer_1]

Legislation requires the action of legislators, not courts.   What's that you say - there's no stomach to lock up few million women each year for murder?   Then try the route of persuasion rather than conversion and don't enlist the Courts to do your dirty work for you.   

Why is that, when the liberals levered the courts to begin with? Good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Jazzhead]

Why is that, when the liberals levered the courts to begin with? Good for the goose is good for the gander.

Because for 40 years now women have relied on the Constitution's protection of their liberty.   

If that liberty is to be denied,  it must not be done by the Court, but by the action of the Peoples' elected representatives.

Amend the Constitution if you believe a woman's liberty can be trumped by her fetus.   

[roamer_1]

Because for 40 years now women have relied on the Constitution's protection of their liberty.

An unconstitutional decision, by any measure - The purpose of the Constitution is to protect rights as accorded by the DoI... Foremost enumerating the right to Life. 

If that liberty is to be denied,  it must not be done by the Court, but by the action of the Peoples' elected representatives.

Amend the Constitution if you believe a woman's liberty can be trumped by her fetus.

It has nothing to do with liberty at all. The point of a woman's so-called liberty should better be (read IS) decided by the moment her knees come apart. And thus it has been from time immemorial, making your 40 years nothing but a pittance.

Provable, btw, by the massive increase in bastard children, coincidental with the advent of so-called women's liberty, to go along with the massive murder of the unborn, which approaches the worst of all the state sponsored murders in history.

[Hoodat]

But to overturn Roe now,  after 40 years of women relying on the liberty it protects, would be the height of "legislating from the bench".

Nope.  Not even remotely true.  If the Court was to rule that abortion was now illegal in all 50 states, then that would be the height of legislating from the bench.  But that is not the same as ruling that the Constitution must be followed, which is what we are asking.  And following the Constitution is the exact opposite of "legislating from the bench".  Following the Constitution means that the Justices restrain themselves through self-imposed limits on their power, using the wording of the Constitution as the basis for their decisions instead of inventing out of thin air some right to abortion with zero reference to the wording of the Constitution (see:  Roe, Plessy, Doe, etc).

The inhibition of such action lies behind the concept of "stare decisis". 

'Stare decisis' has no Constitutional foundation, nor should it ever under any circumstances be used to overrule the Constitution.  Take Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka for example as a contrast against Plessy.  The former case was based on the wording of the Constitution.  Yet you argue that this was an example of legislating from the bench since it went against Plessy?  How ludicrous!  And just as ludicrous is to argue that Segregation should continue to be the law of the land because whites had relied on it for 58 years (18 more than Roe), because Plessy is Constitutional while Amendment XIV is not - which is EXACTLY what you are arguing with Roe.

Yes,  there are occasional Court decisions that do not match the political mood of the nation.

I could care less about the political mood of the nation.  The Constitution itself is far more important.

And if Roe is not one of them,  the solution is to amend the Constitution to provide that a fetus has the same Constitutional rights and protections as a born citizen.

If you are unwilling to follow the Constitution now, what difference will it make to add another Amendment?  Besides, you are already on record arguing that the stare decisis of Roe, Doe, and Plessy overrule the Constitution.

Then you can declare first trimester abortion to be murder and lock up a few million women per year. 

That won't be up to me.  It will be up to the people of my State.  Because unlike you, I trust the citizens to shape society as they see fit, while you insist on imposing your will (at the point of a gun) on people that don't even live in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in direct violation to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Legislation requires the action of legislators, not courts.

Glad to see you finally acknowledge that.

What's that you say - there's no stomach to lock up few million women each year for murder?

Uh, I never said that.  Besides, that falls under the auspices of the Executive Branch of government who is in charge of enforcing (or not enforcing) the law.

Then try the route of persuasion rather than conversion and don't enlist the Courts to do your dirty work for you.   

OMG!  I am not the one enlisting the courts to do your dirty work!  YOU ARE!  I am the one demanding the courts to get the hell out of way and let Amendment X decide the outcome!  Good grief, the truth simply isn't in you.

[Hoodat]

If that liberty is to be denied,  it must not be done by the Court, but by the action of the Peoples' elected representatives.

Didn't the peoples' representatives in Alabama and Georgia just do exactly that?

[Hoodat]

Because for 40 years now women have relied on the Constitution's protection of their liberty.

A similar argument was made in favor of keeping segregation in 1954.  I also seem to remember hearing George Wallace say something like "Abortion today, abortion tomorrow, abortion forever!" while clinging to a 40+ year so-called 'right'.

[Jazzhead]

If you are unwilling to follow the Constitution now, what difference will it make to add another Amendment? 

There is not one word in the Constitution that provides rights in any way, shape or form to a pre-viable fetus.  The woman's liberty is the only thing at stake, and the Tenth Amendment does not give the states the right to deny rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.   

If you don't like that, then amend the Constitution to provide that a first trimester fetus has the rights of a born citizen.   You won't do that, of course, and instead demand the Court do your dirty work for you.   

[Jazzhead]

A similar argument was made in favor of keeping segregation in 1954.  I also seem to remember hearing George Wallace say something like "Abortion today, abortion tomorrow, abortion forever!" while clinging to a 40+ year so-called 'right'.

There's a huge difference between the denial of a right and the protection of a right.   Roe didn't deny a woman's liberty, it is confirmed such liberty is protected under the Federal Constitution.  The pre-viable fetus?   You better exercise your powers of persuasion,  because it has no legal rights vis a vis the mother.  It has no separate physical or legal existence to demand such rights.   It is the woman's responsibility, and no one else's. 

[The_Reader_David]

Another Catholic politician that is in serious need of being excommunicated.

I'm not sure excommunication is enough.   Excommunicate and anathematize.

[Hoodat]

There is not one word in the Constitution that provides rights in any way, shape or form to a pre-viable fetus.

There is an entire Amendment dedicated to rights reserved to the States.  Here it is again:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The woman's liberty is the only thing at stake

The woman's liberty has already been settled.  She is in complete control of her body.  She has complete liberty to CHOOSE whether she will allow a man inside her womb.

What's at stake here is the free right of the State of Georgia to establish its own laws within the confines of the Constitution.

and the Tenth Amendment does not give the states the right to deny rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.

There simply is no such right in the Constitution that is being denied here other than Georgia's right to self-determination.  (See:  Amendment X)

If you don't like that, then amend the Constitution to provide that a first trimester fetus has the rights of a born citizen.

There is no need to amend the Constitution since the right of Georgia to choose its own laws is already there.  (See:  Amendment X).  Besides, there is no point adding a new amendment when you don't respect the amendments that already exist.

You won't do that, of course, and instead demand the Court do your dirty work for you.   

All I am asking is for the court to get the hell out of the way.  You are the one relying on the court to impose your will on states where you don't even live.  You are the only one here demanding that the court do your dirty work, while I simply wish to follow the Constitution of the United States of America.

[Hoodat]

Roe didn't deny a woman's liberty, it is confirmed such liberty is protected under the Federal Constitution.

Please point to the place in the Constitution where this right is confirmed.  Let's see how your citation compares to Amendment X.

The pre-viable fetus?

There you go with that word 'viable' again.  You are so adamant in your insistence that abortion is an absolute Constitutional right afforded every woman.  Yet you simultaneously argue that this absolute Constitutional right of a woman is actually a conditional right that depends on the 'viability' of someone other than the woman.  Do you even realize how illogical that is?  It is like saying that I have the right to free speech or free religious exercise, but only if my kid is not viable.

You better exercise your powers of persuasion,  because it has no legal rights vis a vis the mother.

He/she has whatever rights a State is willing to grant.  Most States protect an unborn baby against murder separate from the life of the mother.  And they do so because of Amendment X which reserves said rights to the States.

It is the woman's responsibility, and no one else's.

The woman's responsibility is to exercise control of her body, and accept the consequences of her actions.  It is society's responsibility to mold and shape that society to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare for its members and their posterity.  Which is why the States were left to create their own laws as their members deem fit.  It is why Amendment X was included in the Bill of Rights.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

What I'd like to see a Democrat say is yes, abortion may be legal, but it is morally wrong.   Bill Clinton came closest, when he declared that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

What happened to the rare part?    The procedure is practically celebrated these days by the Dems, who seek to fund it, encourage it,  and ensure that even those who survive it can be conveniently disposed of.    There is a principled position that concedes a woman's liberty,  but urges that she do the right thing. 

That is what is missing from the Dems' current rhetoric, and it is why they are morally bankrupt.     

@Jazzhead
Agreed.

[mountaineer]

Monday, May 20, 2019
The Arc of History Bends Towards Dumb

If I had to choose a “dumbest” Democrat running for president today I guess I’d confer that distinction on Kirsten Gillibrand.  After all, she’s been groomed by the best.

“OK, got it: before 5:00 pm always have your staff serve the booze in teapots.”

But what has she done to claim that distinction? Well, this:

    “If you are a person of the Christian faith, one of the tenets of our faith is free will. One of the tenets of our democracy is that we have a separation of church and state, and under no circumstances are we supposed to be imposing our faith on other people. And I think this is an example of that effort.”

Such is the nature of “logical” thought today. I don’t know if Kirsten actually believes what she argued - especially since she is a politician which means pandering is her primary skill set -  but I doubt she can point to the bible passage that says it’s a tenet of Christianity to kill unborn children. Anymore than she or anyone else can point to the passage in the U.S. Constitution that purportedly confers the same “right.” You only find such things in the New Postmodern Bible and the Living Constitution.  ...

More at Michelle Obama's Mirror

[jpsb]

Thou. Shalt. NOT. Kill.

Well too many people are getting that wrong.

The best translation is "Thou shall not murder"

The correct translation is "Thou shall not unlawfully kill".

[txradioguy]

But to overturn Roe now,  after 40 years of women relying on the liberty it protects, would be the height of "legislating from the bench".   The inhibition of such action lies behind the concept of "stare decisis". 

Well let's talk about "lies" and Roe v. Wade.

Former Cosmo editor Sue Ellen Browder wrote a book called "How I helped the sexual revolution hijack the Women’s Movement"

She dug through his private papers starting in 2004 when they were released and found out that:

his $15,000 a year, 28-year-old law clerk (George Frampton Jr.) wrote the history for Roe v. Wade and I couldn’t believe it,” Browder exclaims. “I was stunned!”

Oh but wait...there's more!

While Blackmun’s writing lacked flair, his young clerk, Frampton, was an excellent writer. He had been managing editor of the Harvard Law Review prior to his graduation in 1969. Frampton volunteered to stay in Washington during the summer of 1972 to help Blackmun research and draft opinions. The two talked by phone almost every day, Browder discovered.

Frampton had stumbled upon a highly persuasive book, Abortion, written by Larry Lader. It was a “masterpiece of propaganda,” according to Browder. Lader’s “story was laced with poisonous half truth, limited truth, and truth out of context.”

“When Blackmun accepted Larry Lader, a mere magazine writer, as a reliable authority on history, philosophy, and theology, he became a blind man following a blind guide,” Browder notes in her book.

“Lader set himself up as an authority on centuries of abortion legal history and also on two millennia of Catholic teachings about abortion – and Blackmun and his clerk fell for the ruse.”

And guess who was cited several times in the final Roe decision...yup you guessed it.

Lader’s Abortion book was cited at least seven times in the final Roe decision. The other major influence on the historical underpinnings of the decision were papers written by Cyril Chesnut Means Jr., a National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) attorney who falsified abortion legal history.

Much of the bogus abortion history in Lader’s acerbic book was invented by Means. Villanova University law-history professor Joseph Dellapenna analyzed the historic errors in Roe v. Wade in a 1,283 page tome, Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History:

“Means propounded two hitherto unsuspected historical ‘facts’: First, that abortion was not criminal in England or America before the nineteenth century; and second, that abortion was criminalized during the nineteenth century solely to protect the life or health of mothers, and not to protect the lives or health of unborn children. Regardless of how many times these claims are repeated, however, they are not facts; they are myths,” Dellapenna noted.

And yes since we're on the topic of lies:

Many statistics in Lader’s book and later in NARAL’s press releases were completely made up. “Knowing that if a true poll were taken we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls,” in one instance saying that 60% of Americans favored abortion, Dr. Bernard Nathanson revealed. Nathanson was a co-founder of NARAL and performed 60,000 abortions until the invention of the ultrasound turned him against the procedure.

Lader and Nathanson also fabricated the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. Although the actual figure was about 100,000, Nathanson said, “The figure we gave to the media repeatedly (and the figure in Lader’s book) was one million.”

They also lied about the number of women dying each year from illegal abortions. While the real number was about 200, the number they fed to the media was 10,000. The false narrative was spread by a willing news media and never questioned.

http://godreports.com/2015/11/roe-v-wade-influenced-by-false-historical-citations-and-a-young-clerks-over-zealous-hand/


Now I know you'll ignore all of this evidence because nothing will deter you from your support of the murdering infants as some kind of mythical "right".

But the only real lies that have ever been told...come from the left and leftists like you that there is some kind of sacrosanct "right" to kill unborn babies enshrined in our Constitution.

That's a lie counselor.  A bald faced lie and you know it.  You're just too chickensh*t to admit it.

[dfwgator]

People say if you aren't a man you have no say.

Well I say, that unless you live in Alabama, you have no say in what the State of Alabama does with their Abortion Law.

[Hoodat]

Lader’s Abortion book was cited at least seven times in the final Roe decision. 

That is at least seven times more than the Constitution was cites.

[roamer_1]

Well too many people are getting that wrong.

The best translation is "Thou shall not murder"

The correct translation is "Thou shall not unlawfully kill".

True enough... Even so, ANY Christian who uses the concept of free will as a defense of abortion is woefully ignorant of Judeo-Christian tenets, and the very dangerous result of free will unhampered by Torah (Law) - A seared conscience and a blackened soul.

One cannot eat at the table of Yeshua and at the table of demons. 

[Jazzhead]

Now I know you'll ignore all of this evidence because nothing will deter you from your support of the murdering infants as some kind of mythical "right".

But the only real lies that have ever been told...come from the left and leftists like you that there is some kind of sacrosanct "right" to kill unborn babies enshrined in our Constitution.

That's a lie counselor.  A bald faced lie and you know it.  You're just too chickensh*t to admit it.

I don't doubt that some pro-choicers are intellectually dishonest,  the same way some pro-lifers and 2A advocates are.   

But it is not a "lie" to state that Roe v. Wade,  and the decisions prior to that which found a right of personal privacy that, for example, stops a state from banning the use of contraceptives, represent the enshrinement in the Constitution of protection against the denial of these individual liberties by the State.   

Until Roe is overturned,  the choice right is as much a part of the Constitution as the individual gun right.    And until Heller is overturned, the individual gun right is as much a part of the Constitution as the choice right.

There is no hierarchy of individual rights based on whether the right is specifically addressed in the Constitution (free speech) or was found to be under the Constitution's protection by a SCOTUS majority (privacy,  individual RKBA).   To infer that there is such a hierarchy,  or that your gun right is sacrosanct but your daughter's choice right is not,  is a lie.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

There is no hierarchy of individual rights based on whether the right is specifically addressed in the Constitution (free speech) or was found to be under the Constitution's protection by a SCOTUS majority (privacy,  individual RKBA).   To infer that there is such a hierarchy,  or that your gun right is sacrosanct but your daughter's choice right is not,  is a lie.

In terms of the legal effect of a decision by the Supreme Court, you're correct. 

In terms of the legitimacy of a decision, I think you're wrong.

[Jazzhead]

In terms of the legal effect of a decision by the Supreme Court, you're correct. 

In terms of the legitimacy of a decision, I think you're wrong.

You are correct about that.    40-plus years of right and left screaming at each other about individual liberties and fetuses make tragically clear that the SCOTUS finding rights in the Constitution is not the ideal way to convey legitimacy to such rights in our representative Republic.