Quick Links to Posts By Category

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Stop the Slaughter

The anniversary of the horrible Roe v. Wade "decision" by the US Supreme Court, and the fact that it has yet to be overturned, should be a grim reminder to all of us how liberal activism on the Court can cause severe and long lasting damage to our society. This decision is perhaps the most egregious error the Court has ever made by several measures.

First and foremost, the Court's decree legalized and encouraged infanticide. Regardless of how the pro-abortion politicians and activists try to legitimize and euphemize the practice with language like "choice", "right to choose", "termination of a pregnacy", "health of the mother", "quality of life", etc. the fact remains that millions of innocent human lives have been snuffed out and countless others (e.g. those of the parents and relatives of the infanticide victim) have been severely damaged once the realization of the evil they were a party to sinks in. Over thirty years of this travesty has also promoted a troubling "life is cheap" mentality within the culture that has arguably led to an increase in murders and other violent crime as well as "enlightened" views on assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Since Roe, abortion and related "services" have become a lucrative industry and political platform that proponents ruthlessly fight to maintain and expand. Legalized infanticide was originally "sold" to the public as a woman's "right to choose" and would be restricted to the first trimester of the pregnancy when the fetus was an "unviable tissue mass" or the "health of the mother" was threatened. As bad and disingenuous as this was, the carnage has since expanded to allow the extermination of the baby right up until the time of birth. Having made abortion a "right" has also enhanced and protected the financial interests of the "service providers" as poor women who choose to exterminate their baby can do it at the expense of the taxpayers.

In addition to the tangible slaughter the Court's decree has enabled, the ruling set the dangerous legal precedent that "rights" can be created (and taken away) by the unelected, life-time appointed, justices of the Supreme Court. The legal gymnastics the Court used to justify and explain the Roe decision ("penumbral" and "implicit" provisions in the "living, breathing" Constitution) in the wake of no legitimate Constitutional basis for the ruling (or even for the Court to take up the question) have created the foundation for an imperial judiciary. This has led to a power grab by the Supreme Court, impacting important questions such as property rights (the Kelo decision), usurpation of the Constitutional power of the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the military, the illegitimate overturning of laws and the vote of the people in a number of areas, and general liberal activism commonly referred to as "legislating from the bench". Clearly many on the Supreme Court view the Constitution as a guideline, but when all is said and done the law of the land is what the black-robed ones declare it to be.

It's frightening to see the direct and indirect carnage, societal damage, and the usurpation of our liberties that have resulted from the Constitutionally bogus Roe v. Wade decision and subsequent decisions that used Roe as a precent. It's ironic that a lot of the Roe apologists use the "living and breathing" document argument to justify the legitimacy of the decision that literally terminates any semblance of "living and breathing" of the aborted children.

Clearly the time to overturn Roe v. Wade and to reign in an out-of-control Supreme Court is long overdue.


Anonymous Simon Jones said...

What worries me about over turning decisions that were made in courts years and years ago is that surely if you can do that with one, you could go back and do that with any.

Heck, we could go back to the civil war and look at the formation of modern America. What was legal, what wasn't. Bush criticized terrorists because they hide and attach in the darkness of night; wasn't that how the British red coats were defeated?

Fight the legal battle on the merits of the case. Overturning it on legal smallprint and technicalities is a fools errand.

1/24/2007 3:30 PM  
Blogger Right Hook said...

Simon -

No disagreement as far was overturning court decisions willy-nilly. Decisions that are constitutionally flawed should be overturned on their lack of merit.

Even taking the moral component out of consideration, Roe v. Wade is so flawed it could and should be overturned on purely constitutional grounds. Letting such a constutitionally bogus decision stand just propegates the damage as the Court often gives more weight to precedent than the Constitution itself.

Your comparison of Islamic terrorists and the American Revolutionists is way off base. America was fighting to free itself from tyranny. The current crop of Islamists are fighting to impose tyranny. There's a huge difference between using guerilla/asymmetrical tactics against an enemy's military and targeting innocent civilians.

Terrorism isn't a political movement--it's a weapons system or tactic that could be used to promote any political agenda. In practice, it has been and still is used primarily by countries and organizations that lack any semblance of human decency, morality, or tolerance.

1/25/2007 8:31 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


MOB Logo

Powered by Blogger