Praise God for GWB? Think again

As I said before, the majority opinion in this decision isn't anything to celebrate, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the recognition, in the majority opinion, that Roe is the settled law of the land. I'm particularly glad to see that Michael Peroutka has spoken on this. The key sentence from his quote:

He's the major reason why I voted third party in the last election.

I certainly understand why the right wing Christian supporters of Bush are desperate for something, anything, to hold on to. His presidency has been a complete failure and an utter political disaster. But keep in mind, Bush's first SCOTUS nominee, Chief Justice Roberts, has publicly stated that Roe is the "settled law of the land," and is more of a left turning swing vote than Sandra Day O'Connor was. He wanted Miers as his second appointment, and had she been appointed, this would have been a 5-4 decision the other way.

The affect of this ruling on the daily total of abortions performed in this country will be imperceptible.

Still feel like celebrating?

 

I think what we see is the far left and the far right lining up and saying this is bad. Both are notoriously blind to realities. The truth is that this is the first time in 30 years that any restriction on abortion has been "approved." How is that bad?

It is not the best. It may be based on faulty reasoning (like Roe was). It is not what we should pursue. But it is a step in the right direction. And that we should applaud. We should work for more.

There is a case coming up in the 8th circuit that will make its way to the Supreme Court which should be a good case as well.

 

I agree, but would stress it is a great step in the right direction!

Well that is about as political a statement as one could make. Yes, Bush has faltered and did not turn out as hoped, however, he is not a complete failure and deserves credit here. After all the GOP pushed for this legislation and finally passed it though virtually all Dems fought against it. It was also passed under Bill Clinton however he vetoed the bill, twice.

Justice Roberts voted with the majority in this banning of partial birth abortion!

Yes, he made the comment about Roe v. Wade at his confirmation hearing. He is correct in that Roe v. Wade is accepted as the law of the land now. However, if legislation is introduced or Roe v. Wade challenged I believe he will rule to ban it.

He stated in 1990 both the following:

*"We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled,"
*"The Supreme Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution".



Regardless he in no way compares to Sandra Day O'Connor. In addition his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, is "ardently" against abortion and is involved with the antiabortion movement. She is involved with a pro-life group which has filed legal briefs challenging the "constitutionality" of abortion. http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/John_Roberts_Abortion.htm

There were more questions with Harriet Miers specific stance on abortion; However, she has stated she would support a Constitutional ban on abortion also, with exception in saving a mother's life as she stated.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101800715.html

So it is most likely she also would have also upheld this ban on Late Term. 5-4 again.

Well only if you consider a certain amount of saved children relevant. Again, yesterday a Republican Senator noted that of 500,000 late term abortions performed, 95% plus were performed on a healthy mother and child. If it had saved the majority of those children, even one or any in the future, I would say someone would perceive it. Most assuredly God.

ABSOLUTELY:jesus:

 

Sadly, Roe v Wade is "established law" thanks to former liberal SC judges.

That needs to change.

As Pastor Larry said, saving the ones you can is a step in the right direction.

If PB abortions are no longer the womans "right", what is next?

Eventually, I hope to see a Constitutional amendment. But, that won't happen without the first step. "A journey of 1,000 miles" and all that.

 

Since I see the far left blowing head gaskets over this decision, I know it's got to be a good decision. This is just one battle victory in the war against abortion. I pray that there will be many other victories in this war.

 

Thanks, Ralph III. Nice post. :wavey:

 

Some of the sources you cite, particularly ontheissues, are faulty.

The written majority opinion of this ruling cites the Roe decision as law, and, in effect, solidifies its standing in guaranteeing the right of a woman to have an abortion. Even the 5 justices who ruled in favor of this very narrow protection acknowledged that. The language in the majority opinion shows very clearly that the SCOTUS recognizes Roe as being authoritative precedent.

Your statements about Roberts and Miers, in light of their established records, are laughable. Rhetoric notwithstanding, Roberts is on record as saying that Roe v. Wade is the "settled law of the land." Miers is also on record as stating that Roe is "precedent" in terms of determining the constitutionality of state laws regulating abortion. Why do you think the religious right put the pressure on W to dump her? Do a little research, and you will find that Bush himself allowed the parental consent law in Texas to be wiped off the books by a state court packed with his own supporters in January of 2000. This is one of those little bones that they throw to the gullible Religious Right every now and then.

Go back and click this link, and read some of the facts. This law, which will be largely unenforceable for a number of reasons, would have prevented maybe 10,000 abortions performed in the past year. Yes, that's potentially 10,000 less than previously, but I doubt that those who advocate for, and perform abortions, like Planned Parenthood for example, will be deterred by this. They will simply adjust their practices to perform abortions earlier in the pregnancy.

It will take a President with real Christian convictions, and a determination to find and appoint justices who are committed to overturning Roe to end the tragedy of abortion. Word games and legal games like this ruling and law are only designed to keep politicians in office. I'm not sure there is anyone in the federal judiciary system who would actually advocate directly overturning the Roe decision. There is certainly not anyone on that court at this point who will do that, as is clearly obvious by the majority opinion in this ruling.

http://www.theamericanview.com/forum...ead.php?t=1588

 

Unfortunately, it is established law. Bad law for bad reasons. Roe v Wade is authoritative precedent.

It will take more than this wishful thinking.

It will take a Constitutional amendment.

That won't happen until after a long fight.

We need to try to get conservatives in office, who are willing to fight this war and win it one battle at a time, just like the pro-abortion crowd got us to this point one battle at a time.

During WWII, MacArthur took some defeats, had to retreat, but he did return! Eventually, the war in the Pacific was won, and guess what? It was one island at a time. A little here and a little there.

If you throw your support into the pipe dream of a third party candidate who's "going to do it all at once!", you are going to elect democrats who will do their best to repeal even the PB ban, and who are going to celebrate homosexual "marriage", and every other perverversion that is out there.

 

If I remember right 'getting conservatives in office' and and having a republican one party rule was the decades long mantra used to put G. W. and neoliberal 'republicans' in majority control of congress and the executive. We now know how easily such a movement can be co opted. Why continue to bet on painted ponies that have already been proven to be easily converted to trojan horses?

 

Abortion-smoke screen issue

Keeping people stirred about abortion is a smoke screen to hide Bush's agenda for a one world hegemony of international mercantilists. The USofA is reverting to 3rd world conditions as is Europe and that is the plan: transfer all authority and assets to the ruling class.

 

Which is worse, a Democrat whose stand you know, or a Republican who is really pro-abortion but puts on a pro-life face and then deviously and deliberately sabotages every effort to change the ruling? At least, under a Democrat, there will be government programs in place to provide social services to the young women who find themselves in both poverty and trouble, and have an alternative to abortion. As long as Republican candidates think that they are going to get the votes of religious conservatives, regardless of their progress on the abortion issue, they'll never move to do anything about it. What they need is a political beating they'll remember into the next generation.

The private adoption lobby in D.C. pulls a lot of weight, especially with Republicans. As long as abortion is legal, the demand for adoptable infants remains high, and there are some people making a fortune handling private adoptions. To meet the demand, a steady stream of children from Korea, Russia and China are being adopted outside the country and brought in, at a high cost to the families and with a healthy commission to those who have the expertise to navigate the legal system and immigration in order for this to happen. Hence, Republicans are no more likely to want to see the Roe decision overturned than any Democrat. Why vote for them?

 

I have never called GWB a conservative.

I call very few republicans conservative.

But, for the most part, they beat the alternative.

(Although, if someone as liberal as Guiliani or McCain gets the not, I would almost rather see Obama or Hillary win simply to galvanize conservatives. A McCain or Guiliani presidency would not.)

 

I don't think we need any smoke sceen and a one world economy and a one world government is not Bush's plan, it is God's plan. So if you see Bush being used by God to do His will that must be done and bring us closer to Jesus' return, then praise God for it rather than find yourself kicking against the pricks!

God Bless!

 

Christians should vote for candidates who.... #1 do not compromise God's morals. This would cancel out anyone who sides with abortion which is a nicer word for murder and those who want to give special rights for certain immoral behaviors. #2 for those candidates who best support their social and economic views, both sides have good points. Different times require different approaches.

As far as foreign affairs go, God has that under His control and it does not matter who you vote for, you cannot know the future and the events that will happen that will cause the hearts of your elected leaders to be moved by God and make certain moves throughout the world.

Candidates do not run for office saying elect me and I will take us to war. When it comes to these things like Iraq you need only observe God at work and praise God for His work that is being done to move God's aggenda forward to the return of Jesus Christ.

You all want peace and all wars to cease? News Flash! It does not stop until Jesus returns, read it in the Book! We are in Iraq because God put us there. We will leave Iraq when God draws us back out. Christians should not fight among themselves over these things.

We as Christians have a right to speak out and vote God's morals. but we cannot stop God moving the heart of a leader to go to war when God's will is that it be done.

Do we really have the right to complain about our country going into Iraq? I may not like it, I do not like any war, but I know the scriptures and I know that these things will happen and it will not stop until Jesus returns. So I trust God that this war must be and that His hand is controling it. I pray for it to end but I know that it will only end on His time. Its not that I like the war, but I know the Bible, I know how things must be. So I accept it and pray for the best. I do not cast opinionated accusations against government just to make a particular party look bad. That is personal and that is not comprehending the bigger picture.

Foreign affairs is God's work my friends. Stay focused on the great commission and do your part voting, but don't find yourself struggling against those things that only God has control over.

God Bless!

 

How is the right "notoriously" blind to realities?