Cindy McCain is pro-abortion?
Following is a very strange interview CBS’s Katie Couric conducted with Cindy McCain on September 3.
McCain made all these contradictory points in the interview…
She is pro-life. But she opposes overturning Roe v. Wade, which she first indicated was her husband’s position.
She then clarified they both thought abortion should be a state’s issue (which can only happen with the overturn of Roe v. Wade).
She also stated that like her husband she supports abortion for rape/incest.
After the interview Couric added the campaign clarified “that like Laura Bush, CIndy McCain does not favor overturning Roe v. Wade.”
We know Laura Bush is pro-abortion.
So I am left thinking Cindy has an abysmal lack of understanding of Roe v. Wade and is a pro-abort trying to mask it.
Also of note was Couric’s anti-life bias. She started out by saying, “Even Republicans seem surprised that Senator McCain picked a running mate who opposes abortion even in the cases of rape and incest….”
When will Couric ask Michelle Obama, “Even Democrats seem surprised that the party picked Senator Obama for president, who supports partial birth abortion, opposes parental notification of minors before they abort, and who supports allowing little abortion survivors to die.”
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
test
Well, the plot thickens……
Let’s pray for Cindy and Laura Bush. Thankfully, neither one will have the authority to sign anything into law (even though we all know that a wife has a lot of influence over her husband’s decisions)
In the end the Supreme Court will have the final say on this issue and McCain has said that he will appoint judges like Roberts and Alito who will not “legislate from the bench”.
This is very disconcerting…
Katie Couric has shown a tendency to be a radical man hater and extreme proabort for years. I had to quit watching her after hearing some of her more outrageous comments. And it’s sad that Laura Bush, and maybe even Cindie McCain share her affections for the slaughter of unborn babies, but if that is the reality then we must sadly accept it and move on. Those whose hand wear the blood of unborn babies must be left behind as we raise the level of moral awareness in this country.
We have a champion now in Sarah Palin, and we need to be about the business of supporting her, regardless of how badly others fall short.
Sometimes I worry that McCain isn’t really up to date on the abortion issue either. I know he thinks he is, because he thinks life begins at conception. But the whole Embryonic Stem Cell thing leads me to believe that he decided abortion was wrong and failed to dig any deeper.
Of course he is right. Abortion IS wrong, and that part isn’t complicated. What IS complicated is the laws, the unconstitutionality of Roe V Wade, Embryonic stem cells, the nuances like health, rape, incest, Obamas lie, etc. And how Euthanasia is tied directly to it. Also, parental notification which addresses the larger issue of parental rights in general.
He really needs to read up on ALL of it. I don’t think he’d change his mind, but he’d be aware of the lies and pitfalls. I mean, does he realize that PP gets over 3 million dollars of our money each year????
It’s ridiculous that the press continues to think conservatives are not smart enough to catch the “nuances” in their petty and biased questioning.
Thanks for all your hard work, Jill.
So Cindy McCain is pro-choice…big deal. I’m not voting for her. My husband is pro-choice. If I had the ability to snap my fingers and end Roe vs. Wade, I’d do it without hesitation. There have been nights I spent on the couch due to my…ahem…furvor, but we get along alright.
X,
Fervor…I love it. I imagine he’s had a few black eyes from that fervor…lol.
mk@ 7:53,
I couldn’t agree more. The McCains need to start reading Jill’s blog.
Bobby,
This IS very disconcerting. Cindy McCain looked uncomfortable sitting with Katie, like she would have crawled in a hole if there was one nearby, don’t you think? Let’s remember, at least she’s not running for Pres. and Palin is Pro-life. As Darlajune said, let’s pray, pray, pray.
Today we celebrate the birthday of the Blessed Mother. Let us ask for her intercession today, and in the weeks to come.
My parish is holding registration drives the next two weeks. Other Churches and pro-life groups should do the same!
Well, the trick is remembering that there’s more to life than abortion, and that he’s never been personally responsible for any himself.
But, I imagine McCain’s stance to be much like my own: conception = a general term for when a woman first becomes pregnant = implantation. I also think rape and health exceptions should be made, as these two instances are entirely out of the woman’s control.
I’m off to Mass for Mary’s birthday…
Good thing too, because I get the feeling that “X” is about to show us her fervor…
Good Luck Janet…
lol
Or it could be McCain does understand the abortion issue, and he’s just a liar – giving Republicans enough tidbits to convince themselves he’s pro-life when he really intends to appoint judges who won’t overturn Roe v. Wade.
And Cindy states her husband wants to send it back to
the states to decide if the greedy abortionists can
continue to carry out their deadly trade!!
Is that pro-life?
No, that is Evil!
No state has the authority to allow Jews to be gassed, African
americans to be slaves or innocent babies to be dismembered
in their mother’s womb.
Or has John McCain decided the 5th & 14th Amendments mean as little to him as the 1st?
mk,
I’m going to a group rosary and lunch. Catch you later!
I also have been directly involved in the same movement Jill Stanek has been involved in. I also am pro-life…however, I am now involved in the part of medicine that takes care of the severely disabled, the chronically ill, the product of what we want to save and value.
However…I have turned left… I believe strongly in taking care of people. And when after 8yrs, the conservative party continues to preach “Pro Life” but continues to cut programs and funds for our dying children, our disabled children and our underprivledged. How can we establish a voice for the unborn, if we cannot take care of our “born”. I am sickened that we can only make one issue part of our “voting”…
How about “Pro-Human” and taking care of all aspects of human life and dignity.
I work as a PediatricPalliative care RN— I take great pride in helping the lives that so many think are worthless… I have watched family after family get refused for medical assistance, denied by insurance companies and ignored by our governemnt. They were families that decided to continue with their preganancies after finding out they had fetal anomalies or genetic defects. These folks and their children suffer, and suffer because of the Right Wing Budget cuts to the poor, disabled and chronically ill.
Are these not issues… Can we not see that saying “Pro-Life” means MUCH MUCH more than just saying we are against abortion. Can we not admit as the conservative community that voting for just the anti-abortion politician is not going to change the world of not taking care of people. Politics is not one issue.
I guess you can call me a liberal then. I also, was involved with the signing of the bill…I worked with Jill and I hate to see that abortion happens…but I am completely distraught that over the past 8yrs… we have turned against the children that we save and we have decided to not help them.
My decision is not because I want to “kill babies”(as I hear so many say). My decision and voice is to save and assist the millions of children that suffer because we refuse to help them…. You can complain, you can carry a sign, but if you cannot carry the load with those who have to suffer daily… than you are doing nothing.
Shame on you America.
Go Obama/Biden.
Well, the trick is remembering that there’s more to life than abortion, and that he’s never been personally responsible for any himself.
X: unfortunately, it depends upon your perspective… I don’t think too many aborted babies feel this way….
Mk to understand how McCain thinks I believe you will find this article to be most helpful:
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/does_making_babies_make_sense/?view
It’s about having a “constructionist” view of life.
If Roe vs. Wade can be overturned on a point of law this would be the best way to accomplish things I think.
Judges should not be making the laws of a country they should be upholding the laws made by the country’s government and the peoples representatives.
Cindy McCain certainly has alot of poise. It looks like the focal point is whether or not a politician supports Roe vs Wade. I think this is where the prolife movement has failed in America. The proaborts have done a good job presenting the demise of RvW as a step backward in the rights of women. This shrill myth has not been countered well enough by prolifers.
This was a trap I believe by the radical pro-abort Katie Couric, don’t let her fool you, she’s been slanting abortion coverge for years. The corrupt MSM is not on our side, believe me, including condom Katie (I believe she has invested in birth control stocks..)
The spouses have to get up to speed on issues.
Jill,
The McCain campaign should really hire you as an advisor, it’s apparent they need some coaching on this topic.
mk, one correction: PP gets at least 300 (that’s 300 HUNDRED) million of our American tax dollars each year under the guise of Title X. But I believe there’s a clause in Title X says the ‘money can’t go to a group that promotes or performs abortions’.
prohumanity, are you voting for Obama because he wants national health care? Do you really think national health care is the answer?
I certainly don’t want to be forced to pay for someone’s *cough* “enhancements” *cough*, deliberate sterilization, or abortions.
I want health care for our children that need it, but Obama, who supports abortion for ANY reason is NOT the answer.
If we won’t take care of the children BEFORE they are born, how can we take care of them AFTER they are born when they NEED it?
ProHumanity,
Maybe the abortion mentality promotes this disregard for these children and their families.
Hey, you could have “gotten rid of it”. If you didn’t, too bad. Something like the mentality toward abandoned single mothers that I have seen time and again. The father that graciously offers to pay for an abortion, to get himself off the hook, then figures if she had the baby its “her problem”, abandoning the woman and child to a life of welfare dependency and poverty. People have expressed their dismay and anger at Sarah Palin for having her DS child.
I commend and thank you for your work and cannot imagine the suffering you see.
Yes the bureaucracy can be unfair and cruel to these children and their families. But is more gov’t involvement and agencies the answer?
I’ve seen so many situations where children and adults could be cared for at home but insurance and medicaid/care(gov’t agencies by the way) will not provide the needed supplies and material, saving themselves a fortune and enabling children to be cared for in their homes by home health care or their families.
Actually what you describe was the very argument used 40+ years ago to promote the legalization of abortion. What you see now is nothing new. If abortion were legal there would be no child abuse, disabled children, drug or alcohol addicted children, genetically defective children, etc. The emotional appeal was great. Your post only emphasizes that abortion has failed miserably to solve these problems, and only devalued the lives of these children even more.
If only there was a magical solution to the problems that have plagued the human race since creation. Sadly there is not.
What about people of all ages who are sick, disabled, unwanted, and a burden? Any way to solve this?
To anyone one who has concerns about Obama’s credentials to be Commander in Chief, you can now relax. He revealed to George Stephanopoulos, yesterday, that he considered joining the military when he completed high school in 1979. He apparently thought it was pointless though, since the Viet Nam war was over. Wow. Really?
My decision and voice is to save and assist the millions of children that suffer because we refuse to help them…. You can complain, you can carry a sign, but if you cannot carry the load with those who have to suffer daily… than you are doing nothing.
Shame on you America.
Go Obama/Biden.
Posted by: prohumanity at September 8, 2008 8:43 AM
*********************************************
So you believe that voting for a man who voted to allow the continuation of infanticide is a way to “help humanity” and that by supporting this man who is not willing to protect life that is deemed “inconvenient” that somehow, this will make everyone pay attention to the BORN children who are “inconvenient”??
That’s not logical.
BTW, if your understanding of the pro-life movement is that all we do is “complain and carry signs” then you haven’t a clue what we’re about at all.
If Roe vs. Wade can be overturned on a point of law this would be the best way to accomplish things I think.
Patricia, I don’t see how that would be – it’s not a “point of law” that would do it, but a change in the Constitution or at least a different interpretation of it by the Supreme Court. That said, I do think that overturning Roe v. Wade is the best chance to make pro-life people happier. Some states would still have legal abortion, but some would have much greater restrictions on it than at present.
…..
Judges should not be making the laws of a country they should be upholding the laws made by the country’s government and the peoples representatives.
In general, yes, but the Supreme Court also upholds the Constitution, and there are principles of liberty, privacy, freedom, etc., therein that apply to pregnant women, and the Court is correct in saying that a state law is unconstitutional when those are violated.
Doug,
Again, please show us where in the Constitution anything is said about abortion or privacy.
Maybe that privacy section of the Constitution is on that special copy the Supreme Court has. It’s the copy that also said that slaves weren’t human and led to the Dred Scott decision.
Oh, the great and noble Supreme Court — it’s been very wrong before and is now wrong with the Roe v. Wade decision.
LB,
True. The same Supreme Court that sanctioned segregation and putting Japanese-American citizens in concentration camps, after confiscating their property and businesses.
Does the Constitution say anything about segregating our citizens or putting them in concentration camps?
Frightening isn’t it to think 9 people can have such power to “interpret” the Constitution according to their whims?
Wait, I am confused…
Mrs. McCain said that she was prolife and thinks that Roe v. Wade so be overturned and go to the states (i.e. each state would have their own law regarding abortions)…
What exactly is the problem with this?
Also, people are voting for John McCain, not Cindy McCain. She wont have any power in this debate or decision.
…and there are principles of liberty, privacy, freedom, etc., therein that apply to pregnant women, and the Court is correct in saying that a state law is unconstitutional when those are violated.
Um Doug, you left out LIFE.
There’s a “Pro-humanity” on every board there is.
The thing he or she forgets is that in order to have any issues that need to be addressed and for there to be any HELP OFFERD, THERE MUST BE LIFE!
The dead have no issues, they have no need for all the help pro-humanity seems to want to offer.
It all starts with LIFE.
So, because not ALL the needy are helped exactly the way pro-humanity wants, then LET’S MURDER THE INNOCENT IN THE WOMB! LET’S JUST KEEP KILLING THEM, LET THE BLOOD CONTINUE TO FLOW.
Yeah…that’ll teach us, that’ll show ’em.
What idiots the pro-humanity’s of the world are.
As if one single thing pro-humanity had to say justified the killing of one child in the womb.
MK and LizfromNebraska,
Actually PP received 368 million dollars last year from the government–their total budget is over $1 billion–and they plead for more money yet when threatened with 40daysforlife prayer vigils which compromise THEIR viability! They get around the Title X provision by claiming the money is used for research and birth planning (contraception) which we all know is a bunch of hocus-pocus.
“…and there are principles of liberty, privacy, freedom, etc., therein that apply to pregnant women, and the Court is correct in saying that a state law is unconstitutional when those are violated.”
Um Doug, you left out LIFE.
Dee – no, the woman’s right to life is not at issue. With respect to the Roe case I don’t think there was any presumption from either side that the woman’s right to life was being violated. Prior to Roe, a woman could have an abortion on the say-so of two doctors, I believe.
Doug,
The Supremes had no business taking one class of citizens, pregnant women, and declaring that their supposed (inferred) right to privacy is somehow superior to every person’s expressed right to life.
If the outcome weren’t so tragic, the fact that they totally ignored/rewrote the Constitution would be laughable.
Again, please show us where in the Constitution anything is said about abortion or privacy.
Mary, abortion was legal before, during, and after the writing of the Constitution. Abortion was no more of an issue than whether or not to have anchovies on pizza.
There are indeed principles of privacy in the Constitution, such as those that lead to the idea of unreasonable search and seizure, even if a state would want to do it, and legal abortion, even if a state would want to prohibit it.
X,
Fervor…I love it. I imagine he’s had a few black eyes from that fervor…lol.
Posted by: mk at September 8, 2008 8:10 AM
……………………
Promoting domestic violence isn’t in the tiniest bit amusing to most people mk. Shame on you!
The Supremes had no business taking one class of citizens, pregnant women, and declaring that their supposed (inferred) right to privacy is somehow superior to every person’s expressed right to life.
They didn ‘t do that, though, Dee. The unborn did not have the right to life prior to Roe. A woman could have an abortion on the say-so of two docs.
The question was not whether or not the unborn had the right to life, the question was whether the states could justifably ban or further restrict abortion past a point.
…..
If the outcome weren’t so tragic, the fact that they totally ignored/rewrote the Constitution would be laughable.
There was of course no “rewriting,” and they didn’t ignore it – the Constitution is about keeping the gov’t from messing with people unless there is compelling and demonstrable need. Prior to viability, the Court said the states have no such need, and I agree. I know you don’t like abortion, but that’s not enough for me to think you or anybody else should be able to tell a pregnant woman what to do, either way.
I’m a bit confused myself. Overturning Roe v. Wade would bring it up as a state issue- and that is what your ultimate goal is, right? To overturn it?
ProHumanity,
Maybe the abortion mentality promotes this disregard for these children and their families.
Hey, you could have “gotten rid of it”. If you didn’t, too bad. Something like the mentality toward abandoned single mothers that I have seen time and again. The father that graciously offers to pay for an abortion, to get himself off the hook, then figures if she had the baby its “her problem”, abandoning the woman and child to a life of welfare dependency and poverty. People have expressed their dismay and anger at Sarah Palin for having her DS child.
I commend and thank you for your work and cannot imagine the suffering you see.
Yes the bureaucracy can be unfair and cruel to these children and their families. But is more gov’t involvement and agencies the answer?
I’ve seen so many situations where children and adults could be cared for at home but insurance and medicaid/care(gov’t agencies by the way) will not provide the needed supplies and material, saving themselves a fortune and enabling children to be cared for in their homes by home health care or their families.
Actually what you describe was the very argument used 40+ years ago to promote the legalization of abortion. What you see now is nothing new. If abortion were legal there would be no child abuse, disabled children, drug or alcohol addicted children, genetically defective children, etc. The emotional appeal was great. Your post only emphasizes that abortion has failed miserably to solve these problems, and only devalued the lives of these children even more.
If only there was a magical solution to the problems that have plagued the human race since creation. Sadly there is not.
What about people of all ages who are sick, disabled, unwanted, and a burden? Any way to solve this?
Posted by: Mary at September 8, 2008 9:09 AM
…………………….
Apparently your solution to all of societies suffering is to make abortion illegal. Do you really think that having more disabled and terminally ill children brought into the world will make people like you care enough about them to actually support doing something to help families crushed with the burden?
Perhaps seeing disabled children begging on street corners will do it for you?
Cindy is Pro Home Wrecker as well…
Maybe you should check out the hospital that Michelle Obama works with. And then look at the Obamas charitable giving record. You’d think that a man that professes he wants to do so much MORE to help humanity would start the “change” from home.
But, of course, he only pays lip service to the poor rather than actually helping them.
The above comment was directed at “Prohumanity.”
Sally,
Pray tell. What do we do with children who are born normal, healthy, and wanted that become physically or mentally challenged because of accident or illness? Two little girls(sisters) near me have been left brain damaged and disabled because of a drunk driver. Certainly not a situation their parents or family ever anticipated.
We’ve had almost 40 years of legal abortion. Why do we still have the problems mentioned by ProHumanity? Maybe because abortion will do nothing to fix them.
Until we address the real problems Sally, poverty, inequality, ignorance, to name a few people will continue to suffer. There’s no easy way around it.
all this reminds me of something I heard from a comedian on Dr. Katz one time:
One night, I heard a noise outside my house, so I went out to look and found a homeless man searching through my garbage for something to eat. I told him, “I can’t stand to see another human being this way!”
I made him a perfectly good raccoon costume, but does he wear it? No.
Doug, 12:25PM
You’re not answering my question. Slavery was legal too. Owning a slave was no more of an issue than to have anchovies on pizza.
The Constitution specifically addresses search and seizure and says nothing about it being an issue of privacy. Its to protect us from the state searching our homes and seizing any of our property as evidence against us or on a whim.
Isn’t that why we have search warrants?
Kristen 2:00PM
Wasn’t Mrs. O’s hospital found to be diverting low income and non insured pts. to other hospitals? Certainly someone with Mrs.O’s connections could have corrected this situation and fast.
x @ 2:33,
Hi! What will we do with you? :o)
just chuckle and shake your head. I’m used to it. :P
but i thought that little anecdote had some relevance to the poor kid/abortion thing.
abortion:raccoon suit as disabled/poor children:homeless man
I think now that we are seeing a huge bump in the polls the campaign will intentionally try to reveal some more moderate points to attract some moderate undecided voters. IMHO, I think it was calculated to put Cindie in that interview with katie just for this new strategy….That being said “If it is truly what she thinks and what John McCain thinks then YES they need to get Sarah’s ear on the exceptions regarding rape, incest etc….
Recently finished Ronald Reagans biography. He consistently challenged communist leaders to demonstrate the weight of their words with deeds that were consistent with their repetitious pleadings.
Pay very little attention to what people do. Watch very closely what they have done and what they are doing.
Some liberal feminists are finally waking up to the fact the democrat establishment has just been using ‘abortion’ to manipulate them in order to get their support.
Sound familiar my pro-life comrades? The republican establishment does the same thing. They treat conservative christians like a pimp treats his ladies. They talk sweet to us we give what they want. If we ask for a little consideration, they slap us around pretend they do not know us.
Now there may be a few men and women of integrity in politics, judge them by the aggregate of their deeds, not just their words. Be assured, even the devil can do a gentlemanly thing.
Trust, but verify!
Just a matter of strategy why would you send Cindy McCain out to speak for the McCain/Palin campaign. She is clearly out of her element. She does not ‘know’ of what she speaks. Her verbal inconsistencies squander the good will that John M. and Sarah P. have garnered.
The libs and dems and ‘choicers’ are repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot. Just get out of the way and they will start stabing each other in the back.
Provide them with ammunition, when they seem to be running low.
“Do you really think that having more disabled and terminally ill children brought into the world will make people like you care enough about them to actually support doing something to help families crushed with the burden?
Perhaps seeing disabled children begging on street corners will do it for you? ”
Sally,
what do you propose we do with these ‘undesirables’ you speak of?
I say the poster calling itself (that’s a non-gender specific pronoun) “prohumanity”
is really a pro-abort plant from PP.
You’re full of baloney.
kbhvac,
The tone in Cindy’s voice during the Couric interview
questions about whether she is pro-life was very telling.
I doubt she would pass a lie detector test.
She says she is pro-life but doesn’t support overturning
Roe? Go figure!
Or it could be McCain does understand the abortion issue, and he’s just a liar – giving Republicans enough tidbits to convince themselves he’s pro-life when he really intends to appoint judges who won’t overturn Roe v. Wade.
Posted by: Greg at September 8, 2008 8:25 AM
And it’s possible this is all just a sinister plot and what he really wants is to get into power so he can raise taxes and weaken our national defense too???? oh brother….
“The Supremes had no business taking one class of citizens, pregnant women, and declaring that their supposed (inferred) right to privacy is somehow superior to every person’s expressed right to life.”
They didn ‘t do that, though, Dee. The unborn did not have the right to life prior to Roe. A woman could have an abortion on the say-so of two docs.
The question was not whether or not the unborn had the right to life, the question was whether the states could justifably ban or further restrict abortion past a point.
…..
If the outcome weren’t so tragic, the fact that they totally ignored/rewrote the Constitution would be laughable.
There was of course no “rewriting,” and they didn’t ignore it – the Constitution is about keeping the gov’t from messing with people unless there is compelling and demonstrable need. Prior to viability, the Court said the states have no such need, and I agree. I know you don’t like abortion, but that’s not enough for me to think you or anybody else should be able to tell a pregnant woman what to do, either way.
Posted by: Doug at September 8, 2008 12:29 P
Doug, You are completely wrong about this. I’m not going to explain it again because it’s been discussed many times already.
Truthseeker knows no politician would ever lie! lol
Too much time is being wasted on Cindy McCain’s ideas/positions, etc. We’re not voting for HER.
She won’t have any power anyway, and will be as obscure as Laura Bush is.
She doesn’t strike me as capable of being anything special as a first lady…just like Laura Bush.
(Besides, she needs to get rid of that Crystal Carrington hair thing…)
Too much time is being wasted on Sarah Palin’s ideas/positions, etc.
She won’t have any power anyway!
Seriously, nothing about Palin’s appointment is more than symbolic. It’s misleading more than anything, and is clearly an attempt to “balance” and make up for McCain’s candidacy, which has always struggled to find credibility with Christians and pro-lifers.
McCain is a pro-abort. His wife’s personal insight into his positions is telling. Palin doesn’t change his position on abortion, she just masks it.
Mr. McCain is bad, but Mr. Obama is worse.
Mike,
“(Besides, she needs to get rid of that Crystal Carrington hair thing…)”
I love her hair. She looks like a LADY.
People of good will can come forward to protect vulnerable lives, as have the families who volunteer to adopt children with Down Syndrome. Other people may come up with other creative and voluntary ways to help families struggling to provide help for their disabled children now and protection for those children when the parents are gone.
You’re not answering my question. Slavery was legal too. Owning a slave was no more of an issue than to have anchovies on pizza.
Mary, at one time that was true.
…..
The Constitution specifically addresses search and seizure and says nothing about it being an issue of privacy. Its to protect us from the state searching our homes and seizing any of our property as evidence against us or on a whim.
Isn’t that why we have search warrants?
It really all goes to liberty. Yes – the state, “on a whim” or otherwise in unjustified manner, should not mess with people, basically. That’s the bottom line of the Constitution.
Justice McReynolds once said, ”Without doubt, liberty denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Abortion was legal at common law to a point in gestation. Does the state, or the individual states, really have a good enough reason to legally prohibit all abortions? The Supreme Court said no, and that’s consistent with letting the woman decide, whether her decision is to continue a pregnancy, or to end one.
There was of course no “rewriting,” and they didn’t ignore it – the Constitution is about keeping the gov’t from messing with people unless there is compelling and demonstrable need. Prior to viability, the Court said the states have no such need, and I agree. I know you don’t like abortion, but that’s not enough for me to think you or anybody else should be able to tell a pregnant woman what to do, either way.
Janet: Doug, You are completely wrong about this. I’m not going to explain it again because it’s been discussed many times already.
No matter how many times it’s been discussed, what I said is true.
Doug @ 2:10,
Where does it say that the Constitution’s purpose is to keep government from messing with people, etc….? Is that a legal term?
How do you define “compelling and “demonstrable” and “messing with” ?
Where does it say that the Constitution’s purpose is to keep government from messing with people, etc….? Is that a legal term?
Janet, you really should know what that means. The Constitution is primarily about limiting the powers of government. Hence, the “checks and balances” system we have.
There was considerable European influence – especially Montesquieu, who noted that balanced forces in gov’t was required to prevent tyranny over the people. It was nothing new – clear back in the times of the Roman Republic there were checks and balances in their constitution too. There was also the influence of English common law, much of it going back to the Magna Carta – due process” etc.
And really, the English Bill of Rights, from a hundred years before, did a lot to influence people that we needed a similar deal. The original Constitution didn’t do enough to satisfy many people, and guys like James Madison felt the rights of citizens should be further protected, that the gov’t should not be able to “mess with” people, and hence some Amendments were offered and passed – we now call them the “Bill of Rights.”
Also, many people had left Europe because they felt that the gov’t was messing with them too much, and that feeling persisted in the Colonies, as with the Boston Tea Party, etc.
If you just read the Constitution, you’ll see plenty that limits the powers of gov’t, that attempts to retain individual freedom for citizens, etc.
“Congress shall make no law….”
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The gov’t was not to do “unreasonable” things, like search and seizure without due process of law.
The concept of the Constitution prohibiting powers to the states was noted, and the Roe decision is a good example of that.
…..
How do you define “compelling and “demonstrable” and “messing with”?
If it can be demonstrated that gov’t has an evident need, one for the greater good than allowing individual freedom in the case at hand, then that’d be “demonstrable.”
“Compelling” is much the same – and of course it can be argued, like some of the wiretaps the Bush Jr. adminstration instituted after 9/11. Were they for the “greater good”?
Even in the Roe decision, it was noted that “compelling state interest” would be required, per the 14th Amendment:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”
In other words, if you’re going to try and abridge the rights of individuals, then you have to have a really good reason.