« | »

LA Times Runs The Abortion Canard Again

It’s that time of the year again. Election time.

From Los Angeles Times:

This time, Roe vs. Wade really could hang in the balance

The Supreme Court’s onetime wide majority in favor of abortion rights has shrunk to one: Justice John Paul Stevens, who is 88. Now the decision’s fate may depend on who becomes the next president.

By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 5, 2008

WASHINGTON — Every four years, defenders of abortion rights proclaim that the fate of Roe vs. Wade hangs on the outcome of the presidential election.

This year, they may be right.

Through most of the 1990s and until recently, the Supreme Court had a solid 6-3 majority in favor of upholding the right of a woman to choose abortion. But the margin has shrunk to one, now that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is retired and has been replaced by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

And Justice John Paul Stevens, a leader of the narrow majority for abortion rights, is 88.

“Clearly, Roe is on the line this time,” said Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen, a former lawyer for NARAL Pro-Choice America. “It is quite clear they have four votes against it. If the next president appoints one more, the odds are it will be overruled.”

“What we find scary is that people don’t understand what’s at stake,” said Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way. “In the next four years, one to as many as three Supreme Court justices may step down, and they all will come from the liberal end of the court.”

Polls show the American public remains closely split on abortion. Most say they favor legal abortion, with some restrictions. In August, a poll for the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that 54% said abortion should be generally legal, and 41% said it should be mostly illegal.

This week, the Supreme Court opens its term, and abortion is not on the docket there, either. The justices have generally steered away from abortion-related disputes in recent years. They remain closely and bitterly divided on the issue.

Four justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, Stephen G. Breyer and Stevens — have consistently supported the right to abortion, and they have voted to strike down restrictions.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have said the Roe decision should be overturned, leaving the states or Congress to decide the abortion issue.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Alito served as young lawyers in the Reagan administration, which was committed to reversing Roe. And since joining the court, they voted to uphold the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

In the middle, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy has supported strict regulation of abortion, but he has opposed a ban.

If Stevens or Ginsburg were to be replaced by a staunch conservative, that would tip the majority against abortion rights…

[Peter Fenn, a veteran Democratic strategist] said that prospect should be enough to energize supporters of abortion rights.

“If you are pro-choice,” he said, “the stakes are pretty obvious.”

Of course this is all part of the ‘Get Out The Vote’ drive by our one party media.

Too bad that even they have to admit that access to unfettered abortions is just not all that popular. And, besides, few people see abortion as a paramount issue in this election.

Moreover, no reasonably informed person would think that over-turning Roe would mean the end of legal abortions in this country, since the issue would simply return to the states — where it had always been before.

Lastly, it is seldom noted that if abortion is so popular with the citizenry, Congress could always push for a Constitutional amendment, instead of being at the mercy of the fatahs from nine black-robed mullahs.

But never mind all that. The Los Angeles Times has to scare up some more vote for their Democrat masters.


This article was posted by Steve on Sunday, October 5th, 2008. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “LA Times Runs The Abortion Canard Again”

  1. A Mad Pole says:

    Well, that big, white poster says it all, it is not about right to kill unborn babies any more (it probably never has been), it is a total and utter rejection of Christian morality.

    They hate us and want us all dead.

    Another thought: is the person holding up the sign going to be prosecuted for inciting murder?

  2. Another thought: is the person holding up the sign going to be prosecuted for inciting murder?

    No. Of course not!

    The issue of when life begins is not a religious one, contrary to what folks say. Open any respectable biology textbook, turn to the chapter on reproduction, and it will pretty much tell you that when sperm and egg meet, a human being is created. Period.

    If you do not protect the right to life – there cannot be a firm grounding for protecting any rights. If you’re not alive to enjoy rights those rights, by extension, are moot.

    Again, I direct all of you to http://www.realchoice.blogspot.com for the unmasked truth behind abortion. If general practitioners, surgeons, or other medical professionals so greatly ignored and abused the Hippocratic oath as abortionists do – they’d be stripped of their medical license in a heartbeat. Abortion hurts women and has killed – to date – 50 MILLION Americans. 35 million of those Americans would, today, be over 18 and working, taxpaying citizens. Imagine how much better our workforce and economy would be with 35 million Americans contributing to it.

    We have no right to bitch and moan about the collapse of social security and the population bubble that’s about to burst. We brought it upon ourselves for deciding the “right” to consequence-free sex was paramount. We will answer for the 50 million lives brutally ended in the name of “choice.”

    Look at Europe, where abortion is also relatively popular. The Muslims – who believe abortion to be wrong – have more children than the average European. In a generation or so, Muslims will outnumber Europeans. A culture of death, like ours, is killing itself with 1,000 tiny cuts.

  3. U NO HOO says:

    “35 million of those Americans would, today, be over 18 and working, taxpaying citizens”

    …doing the work Americans aren’t doing, and paying Social Security taxes.

    We don’t have to go to the Bible or Koran to demonstrate that abortion is wrong, or to put it another way, anti-social.

  4. wardmama4 says:

    Ah this is just so much more than just one feminazi issue – abortion is partly because the one stumbling block to the feminazis was not men – it was children. And by Roe v Wade – they won that battle. It is also a mix of the crazies from the Population Bomb era who thought the Earth wouldn’t even survive until 1990 – wow, did they miss that one big time. Mix in a few eugenic truthers (paging Margaret Sanger). And then we have to ice the cake with the Dr. Kevokian ‘death squad’ peoples.

    It was, is and has become about making money – and killing culling the ‘undesirables’ from the human herd. So to speak.

    Look at the giant in this Planned Parenthood garnering millions in tax dollars, charging millions of dollars, clearing millions of dollars in profit (supposedly a non-profit) and hand in hand with the embryonic stem cell scam – making money there too.

    Now the Docs want to redefine ‘death’ to harvest organs sooner. Be afraid – very, very afraid.

    They came for the unborn, I was born so I didn’t stand up for them.
    They came for the disabled, I wasn’t disabled so I didn’t stand up for them.
    They came for the elderly, I wasn’t elderly so I didn’t stand up for them.
    They came for me and there was no one to stand up for me.

    It happened in the 1930’s – it will happen again, if we don’t stand up for the most vulnerable and the only real natural resource that is our future – our children.

    And McCain/Palin are they only two candidates who not only speak the words – but have put them into action. By saving a child who is considered less than by the Dems standards.

  5. Faye says:

    While I’m sure “Euthanizing Christians” is not the answer [and it is not only Christians who are opposed to abortion], I think there needs to be a great compromise once and for all for the sake of women and unborn children. Rather than ‘abortion on demand’ – it should be a procedure prescribed by a physician [or psychiatrist] via referral for those women in extreme situations, and be strictly limited to the first trimester. Also, if it’s choice they’re really concerned about – why not offer more than one option by offering adoption counseling/services right on the clinic premises? If you ask young girls where the neighborhood abortion clinic is, they’ll likely know where its located – but ask them where adoption services are offered and they won’t have a clue. And of course, morality and self-respect must be re-introduced into education in addition to sexual health education.

  6. jimmysjeri says:

    wardmama, I am afraid. I loved your paraphrase, the original of which can be found on the Holocaust memorial in Boston.
    To offer another quote, which may or may not be attributed to Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” We need to shout from the rooftops, the truth, the ugly, horrific truth about abortion. We need to educate our children, and we need to elect officials who understand the facts, and stand behind their principles.
    If it weren’t so frightening, the dems complete lack of understanding on the fundamental truths of abortion would be amusing. I mean, how else could completely clueless people rise to the ranks of Hillary, Bill, and Barack?
    And don’t even get me started on judges legislating from the bench…

« Front Page | To Top
« | »