The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

Living in the Roe v. Wade World

By on 10.27.11 @ 6:09AM

Pace David Frum, pro-lifers have no choice but to wage all-out cultural war, thanks to the Supreme Court.

Would the pro-life movement be more successful if it ceased to exist?

David Frum, who never hesitates to violate conservative orthodoxy, seems to think so.

In a column for CNN and a follow-up post for his own FrumForum, Frum suggests that today’s bitter struggle over abortion may be analogous to the one that surrounded alcohol during the years leading up to Prohibition. Frum believes that, just as drinking eventually became disentangled from other hot-button issues and ultimately became politically irrelevant, so too might abortion one day be a forgotten issue. In his follow-up post, Frum argues that such a development would, counterintuitively, lead to a decrease in abortions, as today’s political factions worked together to mitigate the circumstances that lead to unwanted pregnancies, instead of waging cultural war on each other. In other words, the pro-life movement should abandon its attempts to criminalize abortion, and instead get to work on harm reduction. It will save more lives that way.

One wonders about the wisdom of questioning the pro-life movement’s direction even as its current strategy begins to bear fruit: as Frum acknowledges, the percent of pregnancies that end in abortion is decreasing, and while of a number of factors could be responsible, it should be noted that pro-life attitudes are increasingly prevalent. Furthermore, the approach of restricting abortion wherever and however possible has paid off for pro-lifers so far: state level regulations on access to abortions have been shown to reduce abortion rates, while anecdotal evidence suggests a similar potential for stricter regulations on the provision of abortions. And so far, thankfully, these new laws have not generated a spike in the number of women dying during back-alley procedures.

Furthermore, the comparison between the Prohibition and pro-life movements is suspect. Whatever the evils of drinking, the taking of a human life — which pro-lifers understand abortion to be — is a more immediate problem. It would probably be too much, also, to ask pro-lifers to overlook that the culture war over alcohol didn’t end in a cease-fire. It ended with the Prohibitionists losing. Possibly, as Frum suggests, drinking and alcoholism are lesser ills today than they were during the early part of the century, but they remain significant societal problems.

Nevertheless, Frum’s thought experiment sheds light on contemporary debates about abortion and the aims of the pro-life movement. It’s illustrative because of what it omits: any mention of Roe v. Wade.

Without Roe v. Wade in place, Frum is almost certainly right that deescalation of the abortion debate would benefit the pro-life cause. A majority of states would immediately restrict or simply ban abortion procedures, leading to a steep drop-off in the number of abortions performed. Blue states, on the other hand, wouldn’t be any more liberal in their abortion laws than they are now. Pro-lifers wouldn’t hesitate to make that tradeoff.

Because Roe v. Wade precludes a significant role for state legislatures, however, pro-lifers are left with no choice but to wage an all-out effort against pro-choice politicians at the national level. Other than hard-won state-level regulations that make it harder to obtain or provide abortions at the margins, abortion opponents have no recourse but to try to influence presidential politics.

And here the political calculus leads to an extreme strategy: pro-lifers can’t settle for a pro-choice candidate who fits all their other priorities, because that president could cause enormous damage by appointing the wrong judges, thereby setting back the pro-life cause by years, or even decades. As a result, the pro-life faction of the Republican Party requires extraordinary demonstrations of loyalty from GOP presidential hopefuls, in a way that other single-issue voters do not — to the dismay of Republicans (such as the Spectator’s own Ross Kaminsky) less concerned with unborn babies and more concerned with electoral success.

Trying to understand American abortion politics without examining the impact of Roe v. Wade is a pointless exercise. The comparison to Prohibition is similarly fruitless, unless one tries to imagine the scenario in which the Prohibition movement faced the obstacle of a court ruling that upheld an absolute right to alcohol. Needless to say, things would have turned out differently.

Yet contrasting the pro-life movement with the Dry movement is helpful at least to the extent that it illustrates just how pervasive abortion politics have become. Just as debates over drinking got caught up in other cultural and social divides of the Prohibition age, abortion politics today are part and parcel with a host of other red/blue conflicts. It’s no accident that pro-life environmentalists are relatively rare, as are pro-choice opponents of gay marriage, even though there is no obvious reason why that should be the case.

Frum is probably right to think that this division need not exist. Indeed, there was a time in American politics when it did not, and abortion wasn’t a partisan issue — when Jesse Jackson and Ted Kennedy, famously, decried abortion in terms only heard from committed right-wingers today. Within a few years of its decision, though, Roe v. Wade had changed that, and the various political actors sorted themselves out by party and ideology, with only a few notable exceptions.

Hopefully, the budding cultural shift away from tolerance of abortion will eventually lead to the end of abortion-based politics in the U.S., and the pro-life movement will be as much of a nonentity as the Dry movement is today. In the meantime, however, the problem isn’t pro-lifers’ zeal to criminalize abortion. It’s Roe v. Wade.

About the Author

Joseph Lawler, former managing editor of The American Spectator, is editor of Real Clear Policy. Follow him on twitter: @josephlawler.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (193) |

Mike Hawk| 10.27.11 @ 6:20AM

Frum is no conservative. He is a Liberal. Who gives a rat's ass what he says anyway??

Jack in Wi| 10.27.11 @ 8:01AM

Article 3, Paragraph2 of our Constitution states, in part. " In all other cases before mentioned the Surpreme Court shall have Apellate Juridiction, both in Law and F,with such Exceptions, and such Regulations, as the Congress shall Make."

Congress has always had it in it's authority to strip the Federal courts of it's juridiction on the issue of abortion. Dr. Ron Paul, has introduced legislation to do just that. The late, great Jesse Helms, did so first. The law would say in effect the the the juridiction of the Federal Courts is removed from the issue of abortion and is returned to the states where it has always belonged under our Federal Constitutional Republic. Murder is a state crime. So are most other felonies.

Roe was a massive Unconstitutional overeach by the Federal Surpreme Court. It has never been accepted by a huge portion of the American population. It is the reason that the Democtrats have suffered many losses at the polls in the last 40 years.

The Republicans have had these votes fall from the trees by simply mouthing platitudes every election and then doing little or nothing when they win. At least 80% of the Republican vote calls themselves pro-life. At least 80% of the total population agrees with some restrictions on abortion.

The Jewish vote is 1%, at most, of the Republican vote. Yet it and the Israeli issue have far more influence in the Republican party then the 80% of the pro-life vote. If every Jew in the world disappeared tommorrow it would be 16 million people. We have killed 4 times that many in this country since Roe vs Wade. Mr. Frum, like most Jews. [ with honorable exeptions] thinks that the issue of Israel is far more important the issue of abortion. Well to parphrase Mr. Frum's famous quote he wrote for G W. Bush. The Axis of evil are, the social liberals, the Neocons, and the Country Club Republicans.

Return the issue of abortion to the states where this issue can be decided politically. All the old laws contrling abortion came out of the state legislatures. I have no allusions about the fact that abortion will stay legal in some states, but even there, I expect at least a few restrictionss.

Drunken Sailor| 10.27.11 @ 8:17AM

Goering Jack,
You never fail to dissapoint. Even on abortion you manage to smear and attack the Jewish people. Can you not make your point without dragging them into this or is this just your way of getting your jollies? Your anti-Israel rant is getting old, bitter and better blogged on Stormfront.

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 9:53AM

It's amazing, isn't it???

No matter WHAT the topic, Jack always manages to bring it back to "the Jews".

"Hey, Jack...who do you like in the series...Cardinals, or Rangers?"

"Augustus Busch had connections to the Rothschilds and their tentacle-like control of the world banking cartel, which is run through Tel Aviv...So I'm picking the Rangers."

And he denies he's an anti-Semite.

Too funny!

Mike D.| 10.27.11 @ 10:50AM

Thats why I want I think this psycho needs to keep posting, its a learning tool. Fascinating as to how he processes everything through his governing narrative of anti-semitism. Put a banana in and it comes out as the Jewish banana cartel. Put an ordinary doormat in and its comes out as the Jewish textile conspiracy. Clinical psychosis is illustrative in its practice.

Jack in Wi| 10.27.11 @ 10:01AM

The Jews in Congress are the most rabid and vile pro-abortion group in Congress. They never met an abortion they didn't love. Their hall of shame includes all 16 Jewish members of the Senate and all the members of the house with the possible exception of Erick Cantor. The article specifically mentions David Frum, who is a leading advocate of abortion. He is also a huge Israel first wartmonger. Pardon me is I think the blood of an innocent baby in the womb is just as good as that of a Jew. The 60 million abortions since Roe have decimated the old line populations of this country. These babies have been replaced with 60 million mostly third world immigants. The Holocaust of abortion has taken 10 times the lives of the Jewish Holocaust. Hitler did his vile deeds in the secrecy of war. We glorify our Holocaust and claim it is some kind of great human right.

Mike D.| 10.27.11 @ 11:07AM

Good stuff. Now lets keep the confessions coming. Pretend I'm Father Coughlin, and we are in church and sitting in the Confessional box. Now: What troubles you my son?

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 11:21AM

Jack:

Do you know what the "Jews in Congress" do with all those aborted babies???

They use their blood to make MATZOH!!!!

And you're RIGHT to mix apples and oranges!

The Holocaust of the unborn COMPLETELY nullifies what happened to European Jews between 1933-1945!!

Keep it comin', Jack! I'm catalogueing your diatribes for my next article on TASOnline!

(Oops! Did I just say that?!?!)

Mike D.| 10.27.11 @ 12:01PM

He is also a huge Israel first "wartmonger". Got to be the Jewish hand fungus conspiracy in action here. Watch it Cantor, your on double secret Jewish probation, careful or your gonna get one of those armpatches too!

JR| 10.27.11 @ 12:34PM

I agree with you on how horrible abortion is but there are pro abortion catholics and protestants in congress as well.

JR| 10.27.11 @ 12:34PM

I agree with you on how horrible abortion is but there are pro abortion catholics and protestants in congress as well.

Nick| 10.27.11 @ 2:15PM

Jackboot in Wi.,

Just when I think you can't write anything more asinine, you prove me wrong.

So, we can tell how all Jews think because of the few dozen who are in Congress, correct?
Can we do the same with the Catholics in Congress? Do the so-called Catholics (CINOs) in Congress represent all Catholics, or the teachings of the Catholic Church on abortion, brainiac?

Stop pre-judging people based on their ethnicity, and deal with people as individuals.

9thID| 10.27.11 @ 10:25AM

Ron Paul is an anti-Semite, as revealed in Lord's articles, as are most Liber-tarians and Leftists (see OWS). Their anti-Semitism is on the rise all over the world...

Clint| 10.27.11 @ 10:37AM

Uh Oh !

Another Israel Firster Propaganda Agendist Is In The Building.

Dr.Ron Paul,
"While President Obama’s demand that Israel
make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her
long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own,
without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United
Nations.

“Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how
Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those
sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect
Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 11:23AM

...And now, it's time for the woefully stupid to add their two-cents...

Fire away, Clint.

W| 10.27.11 @ 8:47AM

Jack,
It is pointless to respond to you. You are dense and a bigot.

The Jews are not going to disappear. You need to get this dream out of your head.

Congress cannot limit appellate jurisdiction to eliminate a constitutional right. As we tried to explain yesterday, if Congress passed a law that the courts do not have jurisdiction to hear cases involving free speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, and other constitutional rights. That would be a neat way to eliminate the Bill of Rights and other constitutional rights.

Why this obsession with Jews and why does your mind go to eliminating Jews when you could have easily said what if Jews didn't vote instead of what if the Jews disappeared. Maybe it is because you did not make it in law school and all the Jews did?
You need to deal with bigotry against Jews.

If someone wanted to discredit Ron Paul he could not do a better job than you posting purportedly as a Paul supporter.

Clint| 10.27.11 @ 9:05AM

"A Sanctity Of Life Bill would do two things: (1) It would define unborn babies as persons under the law. (2) Under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the US Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the court."

Dr. Ron Paul's : The Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 H.R. 1096.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 9:26AM

What has changed that prevented him from offering this wonderful bill in 1976, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010?

Oh yeah, he's running for President!

How Romneyesque!

Dr. Paul is one of those guys who always complains about things but never manages to get anything done about it. Except maybe serving in Congress long enough to secure his government pension.

Look at his LinkedIn page.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/ronpaul

He himself details all kinds of "things" he's done. What's missing? Successful legislation that actually accomplished anything! Bitching is great-it got us outta caves and into air conditioning! But it didn't discover the laws of thermodynamics that made AC a reality. It didn't build a single house.

Ron Paul is Chicken Little in a suit. He sounds great but delivers nothing!

He is exactly what we don't need.

Sorry, everyone else, but I may have just let a mouse loose in the Paulbots' playpen. It had to be done.

Clint| 10.27.11 @ 9:35AM

Interesting, Exposing The RINO-CINO Cafeteria Christians & Fellow Traveler Agendists,Who Attack Dr.Ron Paul For Fighting To Stop Roe Vs Wade , For So Many Years.

What Bills Has Your Candidate Presented To Stop Roe Vs Wade, Phoney RINO-CINO's ?

You're Up, Bloviator RINO-CINO.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 10:24AM

Clint, Jack,

24 years in Congress. Accomplishments: nothing, none, nichts, zilch, nada, NOTHING.

That's why he's not taken seriously - he's a serial whiner, that's all. Whiny, ineffective, taking care of number 1.

Call me names, say I'm wrong, spit at me. But fail to bring a single Ron Paul accomplishment and I stand insulted, assaulted, wet, and CORRECT.

Capice?

Clint| 10.27.11 @ 10:39AM

Like I Pointed Out,
It's Interesting, Exposing The RINO-CINO Cafeteria Christians & Fellow Traveler Agendists,Who Attack Dr.Ron Paul For Fighting To Stop Roe Vs Wade , For So Many Years.

What Bills Has Your Candidate Presented To Stop Roe Vs Wade, Phoney RINO-CINO's ?

You're Up, Bloviator RINO-CINO.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 11:09AM

Clint;

Who I support is immaterial to the question at hand.

You still have no Paul accomplishments. You still have nothing. NOTHING!

That's your problem, that's why Ron Paul is not taken seriously. Until you and he get some accomplishments this problem will not go away! Why won't you? (If only!)

Are you still waiting at the pier in New
York for the Titanic to come in? It's not going to. Neither is Ron Paul. Don't blame the messenger. Blame the dad gum Captain for sailing too fast through the iceberg field.

Are you capable of understanding this not-very-complicated point? We'll see.

Clint| 10.27.11 @ 11:21AM

There It Is !

A Bunch Of RINO-CINO & Fellow Traveler Shuck & Jive.

This Troll, Hiding Under The Moniker DTOM , Bloviates Against Dr.Ron Paul & Attacks Dr.Paul For The Years The Dr. Has Fought Against Roe Vs.Wade & Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Bill.

"A Sanctity Of Life Bill would do two things: (1) It would define unborn babies as persons under the law. (2) Under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the US Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the court."

Dr. Ron Paul's : The Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 H.R. 1096.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 11:34AM

Clint;

I just asked a question; a question that you cannot answer.

Your response to my direct question is illogical, irrational, and immature.

I will not call you a name. But I will say what you write is factless, illogical, and irrational. No one will listen to you, except the factless, illogical, and irrational.

Which explains your behavior.

Blast away at me as you like.

YOU STILL HAVE NOTHING.

Jack in Wi| 10.27.11 @ 12:25PM

Ron Paul
Right on the Federal Reserve.
Right on slashing spending and returning to a Constitutional republic.
Right on the housing bubble and collapse years before it happened.
Right on the disasterous wars.
Right on getting rid of foreign aid.
Right on using the Constitution to get rid of Roe vs. Wade.
Right on being against the bailouts.
Right on using the letters of marque and reprisals against terroists, instead of spening trillions and getting a huge number of people killed.
I can see why you people are a little upset. The people you have been backing have been wrong on just about everything.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 1:11PM

He's Dr. Donothing, not Dr. Dooright.

He could be right on every question in the entire universe! He's ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING. 24 years in the House and all he's done is suck up oxygen, exhale continuous complaints, and pick up his checks! Nothing is different for his having been in Congress for 24 years! (Except maybe he's kept out somebody who might have actually done something in Congress.)

Dr. Paul is a tree falling in the middle of the forest with no one around. No one has heard it, whether it made a sound or not does not matter one single iota. Whether it fell or not does not matter one single iota.

Get it yet?

The world is full of people who are right, but INEFFECTIVE. That's your Dr. Paul. What's the point of complaining about things when you are in a position to try to fix them? He's like Obama complaining that we need jobs, but he has yet to find a single thing to help create private sector jobs. We do not need more of THAT?

Too long in office, too little done. That's your Dr. Paul. Don't call me names, look at him! I didn't make be a donothing whiner. Why don't you get mad at HIM for being so unproductive? Maybe you should!

I didn't sell the emperor the invisible clothes, I just asked what he had on!

Waiting to be called more names here-like this is my fault...

sirbourbon| 10.27.11 @ 1:46PM

When all the other "yes" congressmen of both parties are funding a foreign aid bill loaded with millions of cash to a dictator like Libya's dictator you cheer them? But you denigrate a congressman that votes No!

Wow, that is really taking the establishment line and swallowing the hock and sinker. You believe that a slap at the rule of law by the majority of "yes" voters is a positive good? The Constitution gives no authority to congress or the president to fund foreign governments. To do so is counter-productive in terms of national security and balancing our budget! There are the moral questions of stealing from the bread earners (tax payers) to prop up tyrants in Libya and Red China. Robbing tax payers of their treasure is only a 'positive" in the world of the deceived and delusional.

Paul's NO VOTES are positive because they measure up Constitutionally, something you obviously don't understand.

Stealing from Paul to pay Peter is a negative. A "NO" vote by dr. Paul is a very healthy thing to say amongst so many theives! These cons that vote "yes" are elected by stupid voters that buy into their line that they will vote yes on foreign aid, yes to funding NPR, yes to funding EPA, Yes to funding Planned Parenthood etc, all of which Doctor Paul has and will continue to vote NO on!

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 6:04PM

Bourbon-filled one,

My point was and remains that for a fellow in Congress for 24 years, Dr. Paul has managed to get nothing, absolutely NOTHING done.

Compare and contrast that with another Paul, Paul Ryan. He's been there about 1/4 as long as Ron Paul. Can you detect the difference between the accomplishments of these two Congressmen?

I say that a fellow like Paul Ryan is a leader, moving the discussion forward, bringing the entire body politic to focus on the budget.

Ron Paul has had no similar impact on the conversation over the last decades.

Ron Paul is one of those who runs around bitching, 'if I were in charge, I could fix all this' while never figuring out how to influence the process with the position he already has.

If you want the American people to elect you President you have to show LEADERSHIP.

Ron Paul has not. Paul Ryan has.

Are you beginning to get the idea?

We need a conservative LEADER.

Capice?

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 11:24AM

Actually, dummy, the President you hate, George W. Bush, did MORE to stop abortions than any President in recent memory...

...But let's not let facts get in the way of our hero-worship, right?

sirbourbon| 10.27.11 @ 1:15PM

Bush never once spoke, in the 8 years he was in office, at a Right to Life convention or before a RTL rally or march the RTL people organized. Bush never jonced mentioned Article III, section 2. Bush did say that the Constitution was just a g* d d*** piece of paper," and maybe that's why you adore Bush would be my guess.

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 1:38PM

Bush CUT-OFF funding for overseas abortion.

Bush pushed for banning partial-birth abortion.

Bush severely cut-back tax-payer funded abortions in the USA.

Bush pushed for parental notification laws.

Saying or implying he did nothing is stupid.

sirbourbon| 10.27.11 @ 1:59PM

In fiscal year ending June 30, 2008, Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, received nearly $350 million in federal funding, according to a report from CNSNews.com. CNSNews obtained this figure from the organization’s annual report; the report for that fiscal year is the latest one that has been publicly released. That money, plus additional federal money for the following fiscal year, paid for 324,008 abortions performed by Planned Parenthood Affiliate Health Centers in 2008, according to a Planned Parenthood fact sheet.

During 2007 and 2008, President George W. Bush, a self-described pro-lifer and darling of many pro-life voters did not use his pen to veto any of this! Bush, who once flatly stated that “we’re not going to spend taxpayers’ money on abortion,” ended up permitting over $2.5 billion in taxpayers’ money to go to Planned Parenthood during his presidency. Between 2005 and 2006 — well after he had made his firm statement against spending taxpayer dollars on abortion — Bush approved a 67 percent increase in federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

Let it also be noted that during most of Bush’s presidency he had the luxury of working with a Congress dominated by his own party, which also claims to be pro-life. Yet both the Republicans in Congress and the Republican in the White House saw fit not just to continue but to increase federal funding of Planned Parenthood every single year — and at a faster rate than it had increased under President Bill Clinton, who never claimed to be pro-life.

PP annual report:>> http://www.plannedparenthood.o.....vFinal.pdf

Go and get educated on Bush's real record on Right to Life for babies.

Best Memory | 2.2.12 @ 9:58PM

Wow..what a record there...

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.27.11 @ 11:59AM

DTOM,
that was so funny. Thanks

RCV| 10.27.11 @ 10:45AM

Ron Paul's views on constitutional law are as unsound as his views on foreign policy. Rightly or wrongly decided, Roe is grounded in the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution. If the guarantees in the Bill of Rights against legislative encroachments could be eviscerated merely by the legislative taking away the Court's power to strike down legislative enactments as unconstitutional, the Bill of Rights would be meaningless. Congress could simply pass a law taking jurisdiction away from the Court on any matter involving the Bill of Rights!

Read the Federalist and Madison's explanation on why the power to declare legislative acts as violative of the Constitution is both an inherent and necessary power in a Constitutional Republic.

The only way to overturn Roe is either by convincing the Court that its original interpretation of the Ninth Amendment right of privacy was wrong, or amending the Constitution.

Clint| 10.27.11 @ 10:52AM

Once Again, The Obama LawBoy RCV Joins In The Atteck On Dr.Ron Paul,For Fighting Against Roe Vs. Wade For Years And Dr.Ron Paul Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Bill.

"A Sanctity Of Life Bill would do two things: (1) It would define unborn babies as persons under the law. (2) Under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the US Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the court."

Dr. Ron Paul's : The Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 H.R. 1096.

Jack in Wi| 10.27.11 @ 12:15PM

The Juridiction of the Court has been restricted by the Congress an many occasions, most recently in the so called war on Terror. The Constitution is quite clear on the power of Congress to control the Jurisdiction of the Federal courts.

Vern Crisler| 10.27.11 @ 10:59AM

The 9th amendment is a restriction on the federal government, not on the States. The 14th Amendment did not incorporate this amendment.

RCV| 10.27.11 @ 11:34AM

Not so, Vern. The Supreme Court has stricken down state restrictions on 9th Amendment rights.

Vern Crisler | 10.27.11 @ 5:56PM

Your missing the point RCV, the Supreme Court had NO authority to apply the 9th Amendment to the States. They just did it arbitrarily and because of that none of their decisions based on such a method are valid.

RCV| 10.27.11 @ 9:04PM

So says Vern Crisler, but that writ will not run far.

Vern Crisler | 10.27.11 @ 10:07PM

It's also what liberal Democrat Raoul Berger said. See his tour de force, *Government by Judiciary* in which he argues that the 14th amendment did NOT apply the Bill of Rights en masse to the States:
http://www.amazon.com/Governme.....0865971447

W| 10.27.11 @ 12:03PM

RCV,
The law firm of Jack,Jack,&Associates; believes they just discovered they can prevent the courts from hearing abortion cases, and everybody else is too stupid to figure this out for the past 40 years. I can't understand why they don't realize that if Congress can stop the courts from hearing abortion cases, then Congress can stop the courts from hearing cases on free speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, etc.
The bigotry has totally clouded the ability to reason.

sirbourbon| 10.27.11 @ 1:00PM

It's no longer just Ron Paul talking about limiting or removing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court via article III, section 2, but Newt Gingrich has joined in on using revisiting that little used clause which states: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

W| 10.27.11 @ 1:04PM

What did Newt say, do you have a reference. If he agrees with Ron Paul then he is also wrong like Paul

RCV| 10.27.11 @ 1:12PM

As I said, if Paul were right on this issue -- and he is clearly not -- our Bill of Rights would be an utterly meaningless and ineffectual document, and we would cease to be a constitutional republic.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 6:06PM

Talking, just talking. Getting Newt's attention is as hard as waving candy in front of a baby. You gotta make Obama squeal and call you names because you're getting to him and the people, like Paul Ryan.

Nick| 10.27.11 @ 2:31PM

RCV,

If the 9th Article of Amendment prohibits the several States from limiting rights of the people, like the so-called right to privacy; what about the 2nd's right to keep and bears arms not being infringed? Doesn't the 2nd Article of Amendment prohibit the states from regulating arms of any kind, because it is granted to the people?

Also, why did the Founders give the Congress the power to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme court? If Congress took away jurisdiction regarding the Bill of Rights, the people would be able to replace that Congress in less than two years.

That is the remedy. Federal court justices sit for life. The only way to get rid of them is impeachment and conviction, which is rarely done. And, never for violating the Constitution proper.

RCV| 10.27.11 @ 4:32PM

The 2nd Amendment DOES apply to the states, as the Supreme Court recently decided. But like the 1st Amendment, it is not absolute and subject to reasonable restrictions and regulations, which has been the case since before the Republic was founded.

The power of Congress to define federal jurisdiction relates to the kind of civil disputes which Congress believes appropriate to the federal, as opposed to state, courts. It does not, however, grant power to Congress to prevent the Court from exercising its inherent obligation to enforce the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights against legislative encroachments. And it is not a remedy that the majority of the people could replace a Congress that did that to the Court -- the Bill of Rights is intended as a guarantee of rights against the passions of the moment that might overtake the majority. It's a list of rights that even the majority can't transgress.

As Hamilton wrote in the Federalist No. 78,
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. . . .

[W]here the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. . . .

[W]henever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former."

In a Republic with Constitutional guarantees, it must be so.

Nick| 10.27.11 @ 5:19PM

RCV,

Yes, I agree that no right is absolute. I was just trying to square your position on the 9th with the liberal claims that "a well regulated militia" somehow means that states have the power to regulate arms.

I, also, agree with Mr. Hamilton's views on the courts. How would removing the federal court's jurisdiction over abortion laws violate their "obligation to enforce the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights against legislative encroachments"? Even if you believe abortion is a right, as described in the 9th Article of Amendment?

It would only return the country to the pre-Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton era, when it was up to each state how to regulate abortion. Are not abortions subject to "reasonable restrictions and regulations" by the states?

Before you say that they already are, Doe v. Bolton removed any restrictions on abortion for the "health of the mother." This opened the door to abortion on demand through all 9 months of pregnancy. Doe is why Tiller the Baby Killer could execute partial-birth abortions into the 9th month.

"It's a list of rights that even the majority can't transgress."

I totally agree with this principle. Too bad liberals don't. Democrat Congresses, under presidents from both parties, have been violating the rights of the minority and majority since the Raw Deal.

I don't believe that the Founders intended the Supreme court to be an oligarch. The liberal view of jurisprudence says that the 9 oligarchs could repeal all the laws concerning all murders, like they did with abortion and the death penalty, 40 years ago.

This is why the Framers, in their wisdom, gave Congress the power to limit the federals court's jurisdiction, in my opinion.
Take care.

RCV| 10.27.11 @ 5:53PM

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, Nick. But be well, my friend!

RCV| 10.27.11 @ 6:42PM

So when Congress passed Obamacare, they should have just included a provision in it taking away the Federal Court's jurisdiction to hear any Constitutional challenge to it? For the sake on winning on this issue, some conservatives and "libertarians" seem willing to gut the Bill of Rights and any semblance of a constitutional republic. very sad and oh-so shortsighted.

Vern Crisler | 10.27.11 @ 6:12PM

RCV, that Hamilton quote shows that the Founders hated what is now called "substantive due process" -- judges making it up as they go.

Vern Crisler | 10.27.11 @ 6:10PM

Nick the 2nd Amendment is only a restriction on the federal government (i.e., Congress). The States already had Bills of Right protecting individual liberties. The only way the Court can apply the 2nd amendment to the States is because they've adopted a fraudulent incorporation theory.

RCV| 10.27.11 @ 6:43PM

Vern, it isn't so because you say so. The opinion of the SCOTUS on the issue controls, not yours.

Vern Crisler | 10.27.11 @ 6:55PM

Truth controls RCV, not the Supreme Court. The President and Congress could take everyone of those Judges and throw them in jail for their usurpations. They don't because too many of them agree with their buddies who they put on the Court in the first place.

sirbourbon| 10.27.11 @ 2:37PM

The argument is not that there aren't other legal constitutional avenues to take but that the route of article III, section two is a viable constiutionally- sound route. The RT Life amendment process is a long and lengthy route that will federalize another law that belongs to the states. The same goes for the Marriage amendment touted by religious groups. Both amendment proposals are defective in that they centralize more power and control on family matters and state matters.

Laws banning abortion were the original jurisdiction of the states until "privacy" issues were twisted into abortion rights of women. The entire "right to choose was birthed in the language of liars and therein lies the problem- Judges who think of themselves above God's law. Nixon's pick for SC judge wrote the majority opinion on Roe v Wade, visciously played God to deny the right of the unborn to have a right to life!

Back to article III, section 2 and the history of the back and forth tug of war between congress and the courts relating to a matter involving due process, specifically the case of Ex Parte Millgan.
The Supreme Court issued a clear ruling on military commissions in the case of Ex Parte Milligan in 1866, which was a full-blown rebuke of the pretended authority of the President to deny Americans a trial by jury during a time of conflict. In that case, Lambdin P. Milligan and four co-conspirators were accused in 1863 of plotting to steal guns from a federal armory and to liberate Confederates in Indiana prisoner-of-war camps. Milligan and his compatriots were convicted and sentenced to death by a military commission in 1864, but execution was delayed until after the war while Milligan — a civilian — appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court on habeas corpus grounds. The Supreme Court ruled that with a functioning civil court system in Indiana, the federal government could not create a new court and infringe on the judicial power of the United States under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled in Ex Parte Milligan that “martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction.”

Enters congress with passage of the Reconstruction Act. Congress insistent upon imposing military rule in the South after the Civil War responded to Milligan with the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which prohibited the Supreme Court from deciding cases on military commissions, based on the congressional power to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Article III, Section 2).

The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Ex Parte McCardle that, because of the Reconstruction Act, it had no jurisdiction to free William McCardle. McCardle was a Mississippi newspaper editor and former confederate sergeant who had used his newspaper to editorialize against federal reconstruction legislation, and had been sentenced to prison by a military commission.

Rightly or wrongly the congress acted to limit the court's jurisdiction with the Reconstruction Act.

Jack in Wi| 10.27.11 @ 3:11PM

Sirbourbon: You are a real scholar. keep up your fine work here. You have my highest respect.

Mike D.| 10.28.11 @ 3:42PM

A ringing endorsement of respect from a Jew hater. Boy, thats got to be a true honor.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 6:14PM

Amendment is a long process?

The 26th Amendment was ratified by the States within 100 days of its passage by the House. Yea, that was in the old days, 1971.

But don't let the facts get in your way, please.

And extending the definition of citizens to starting at conception or somewhere thereabouts is not a State issue. I believe that the whole Life, Liberty thing is a God-given natural right that is not to be infringed upon by the States or the Federal Government.

Sort of like defining slaves as humans rather than property.

SB you have a wonderful way of erecting straw barriers to prevent things from changing. Sorta like a statist...

Ground Control| 10.27.11 @ 3:30PM

The ninth Amendment has nothing to do with abortion or "privacy" and is no basis for RvW. The 9th Amendment simply means that the act of enumerating certain rights in the US Constitution did not "deny or disparage" rights that already existed in State constitutions. The 9th Amendment prohibits the government from "construing" such enumeration as a denial of other rights "retained" by the People. The reason for this is that it was specifically intended that by enumerating specific POWERS of the US Government in the Constitution, that this did in fact deny and disparage any additional powers that the US Government may see fit to grant to itself. This was considered insufficient guarantee, so teh 10th Amendment was ratified. But the 9th Amendment specifically prohibits this principle of denial from applying to RIGHTS where it already did apply to POWERS.

The 9th Amendment grants no power to the US government to amend the Constitution or to any Court to fabricate any new "rights". That power rests with the People, not the Courts. The Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion, and the practice of medicine (and abortion IS a practice of medicine by any reasonable definition), and therefore the power to regulate such is reserved to the States.

And I agree completely with your last statement. The only way to overturn RvW is for the Court to do it itself or by Constitutional Amendment. In either case, RvW is seriously flawed and points to the need for selecting Justices who respect the Supreme Law of the Land, not try to rewrite it.

Vern Crisler | 10.27.11 @ 6:16PM

Ground Control, you make some good points, but I still think that the 14th Amendment precludes abortion from being a State issue.

W| 10.27.11 @ 3:49PM

RCV
If I recall correctly the basis of Roe was the right of privacy inherent in the 14 th amendment and the due process clause. The lower courts used the 9th A but not the Supremes. The 9th does not create any rights it just reserves rights in the people. Roe was a mess legally, talking about emantions from penumbras of the various amendments because there is not clear right to abortion stated in the Constitution.

RCV| 10.27.11 @ 4:35PM

That Roe was a mess legally is a proposition that will get no dispute from me.

Vern Crisler | 10.27.11 @ 6:23PM

W, there is no "privacy" inherent in the 14th Amendment or due process clause (redundant since the 14th amendment incorporated the due process clause). As with everything connected with liberal decisions, the Court was just making it up as it went along.

Ground Control| 10.27.11 @ 7:36PM

The FOURTH Amendment says that the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue except upon probable cause..." This does not describe a "right to privacy" but rather a prohibition against government violating one's privacy, except where a crime is suspected, there is probable cause to search, and a warrant is issued. Clearly, one's privacy CAN be violated under these conditions. There is nothing inherent in this that allows the commission of a crime simply because it is done in private. Yet this is the core of RvW, that BECAUSE abortion is private, it therefore can not be a statute crime (which it under was State Laws prior to RvW.) And of course, this reasoning is ludicrous as is Harry Blackmun's opinion.

Mike D.| 10.27.11 @ 9:13AM

Jack in Wi.| 9.10.11 @ 10:04AM
"Whatever good individual Jews have done in the world pails in comparission to the bad of the last 200 years. Atheism, communism, Socialism, Nuclear Weapons, expansionist Zionism, and nuclear blackmail"

This is what a psychotic paranoid Anti-Semite looks like, sounds like, and the filter he sees the entire world through. Above is why the statement "If every Jew in the world disappeared tommorrow it would be 16 million people" is relevant. When one sees that Jews are whats wrong with the world as the above statement illustrates, then extrapolating that anti-semitism into the Roe vs. Wade context and the killing of the unborn are just the next logical step of who to blame. This dude is textbook psychotic.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 9:28AM

Especially when they use the world "pails" , when they mean "pales."

Clint| 10.27.11 @ 9:42AM

Constitution Party National Platform

We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

Jack in Wi| 10.27.11 @ 10:12AM

Mike D: Every word I said is true. It is not anti semitic to tell someone he is wrong and should change. In fact it is an act of true charity. I forgot to add to that list pushing abortion. You Jews just seem to love it, with honorable exceptions. The first attempt to legalize and glorify abortion came in the Soviet Union which at the time was controlled by Jewish Communists. I remember when we were marching on the clinics in Milwaukee. The two largest pro abortion Reform congregations were the headquarters of the abortion lovers who supposedly were guarding the clinics. It was sad that several of my old Jewish friends and business associates were prominent members of these congregations.

Mike D.| 10.27.11 @ 10:21AM

"Every word I said is true" Of course it is. Here I fixed it for you. Now its up to date. How about "greed" can we add that one too?

Jack in Wi.| 9.10.11 @ 10:04AM
"Whatever good individual Jews have done in the world pails in comparission to the bad of the last 200 years. Atheism, communism, Socialism, Nuclear Weapons, expansionist Zionism, and nuclear blackmail and Abortion"

"several of my old Jewish friends"
Of course we have the attempted disclaimer phrase thrown in for effect. Great stuff.

Jack in Wi| 10.27.11 @ 11:53AM

Mike D. As are all the statements I make here. It is true. If I make a mistake I would apologize. I follow the Greatest Jew Who ever lived. He Who said the Truth will set you free.

Now back to my Jewish associates and friends who belonged to the rabidly pro abort Reform synagogues. I owe some of these guys a lot because they helped me when I needed it in business. It just sad that they can't see the light on abortion. I go to lunch most weeks with an old Jewish friend. He is an educated, well read, and intresting guy. On the issue of abortion he is rabidly pro abort. He hates his very rich Orthodox brother and sister in law because when his sister in law was pregnant , later in life, she refused all testing on the baby. She would not even consider an abortion. Well the baby was born retarded and the family is keeping the child in the home and raising it with the rest of their family. My friend is applalled that someone would do that. Well to me the Orthodox Jew and his wife are hero's and I have told my friend, so everytime he brings it up.

JR| 10.27.11 @ 12:56PM

Unfortunately there are Protestants and Catholics with the same views as this old friend of yours.

RCV| 10.27.11 @ 10:47AM

You are simply a disgusting antisemite, Jack. The only good thing about that is you reduce any chance that a decent conservative would be attracted to Ron Paul's candidacy. You and Clint are his biggest impediments to success in recruiting TAS readers.

Clint| 10.27.11 @ 10:58AM

The Big Yellow ObamaBoyIsrael Firster RCV Bus Calls A Canary Yellow.

This Is The ObamaBoy Who's Attacking Dr.Ron Paul, Who Has Fought For Years To Stop Roe Vs.Wade.

Dr.Ron Paul's Sanctity Of Life Bill.

"A Sanctity Of Life Bill would do two things: (1) It would define unborn babies as persons under the law. (2) Under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the US Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the court."

Dr. Ron Paul's : The Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 H.R. 1096.

Jack in Wi| 10.27.11 @ 11:57AM

Anti semite, anti semite, anti semite, you chaps love to intimidate anyone who disagrees with you. Well you can go to hell. The Truth will set you free baby. Ron Paul speaks the truth. He isn't a liar and a panderer. He is fearless in his dedication to the truth, the Constitution, Life, and Liberty.

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 12:57PM

No, we are simply compelled to call you what you are:

An anti-Semite.

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 1:02PM

Jack,

Did you ever wonder WHY so many people on this board think you're an anti-Semite?

Did it ever make you even the slightest bit curious as to how they all came to this conclusion independently???

It's not like we all belong to a "Get Jack!" club.

The reason is simple:

Many of the things you post are anti-Semitic.

No, they're not the over-the-top anti-Semitic comments made by people like Hitler...Or Lewis Farakhan.

But it's obvious, OK?

Next time you get annoyed when people call you an anti-Semite, try a little introspection.

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 11:26AM

"You Jews"..?

Nice one, Jack in Bavaria!

Jack in Wi| 10.27.11 @ 1:03PM

After rereading what I wrote, I've changed my mind. HA HA HA Jews promoting atheism!?!? What was I thinking? That's just stupid!
My sincerest apologies to all for my ignorance and lack of manners.

Jack in Wi| 10.27.11 @ 3:07PM

Another liying little Zionist twerp, stealing my name. I am no atheist but can define atheism in 3 sentences. We come from nothing. We are here for no reason. We are going no-where. Praise be Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior. God Bless his vicar on earth the Pope.

Margie| 10.27.11 @ 4:19PM

Jesus has no "vicar" on Earth. You've been had, just lie you've been had in oh, so many ways.

"For there is one God, and there is one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, Who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time." 1 Tim. 2:5 & 6.

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 4:37PM

...I don't think that was actually "jack"...

Jack in Wi| 10.27.11 @ 12:10PM

W. If it is pointless to respond to me. Why do you? I don't care what happens to Israel. If they don't like the neighborhood, they stole, they can go somewhere else. I lived in a heavily Jewish neighborhood for decades. I can stand to live with a few more of you blowhards.

Mike D.| 10.27.11 @ 12:26PM

"I lived in a heavily Jewish neighborhood for decades. I can stand to live with a few more of you blowhards"

Jackboot was kindly known as the "anti-semite on the roof" in the old neighborhood in deference to the hit broadway musical. Yahda dah dah dah dah.

W| 10.27.11 @ 12:27PM

Jack,
It is pointless in the sense that you do not seem to understand what is written to you, especially about your idea to limit jurisdiction, and why you have this hatred of Israel and Jews. Why do you have this hatred of Israel?
I replied because you posted blatant legal nonsense and bigotry which should not go unchallenged.

Please explain why you hate Israel

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 12:58PM

Why does Jack hate Jews?

'Cuz some wealthy Jewish businessmen in Wisconsin lent Jack some money, and they had the nerve to ask him to pay it back.

Jack in Wi| 10.27.11 @ 3:18PM

I don't hate Jews . I hate what people like Frum and you stand for, for endless wars for Israel, and endless abortions. I care about 60 million babies killed since Roe vs Wade. The Holocaust has been over for 66 years.The Holocaust of abortion kills 3300 babies every day. I am for Peace, Life and Liberty. If that is in the way of your agenda, so be it.

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 3:20PM

We've NEVER fought a war "for Israel", so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Can you please explain?

Mike D.| 10.27.11 @ 4:59PM

Jack liebt Juden, will ein Jude zu sein, und im Einklang mit allen Juden. Juden sind gut und Jack will nur das Beste für alle Juden.

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 3:19PM

If they don't like the neighborhood they "stole"..???

Jack, you truly ARE a despicable ass.

I guess by your own logic, you should support the return of Wisconsin to the Chippewa tribe, right?

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 6:17PM

Nope, the Potawotami - they run a better casino...HeeHaw.

Jack in Wi| 10.27.11 @ 7:12PM

The Potowatami and The Onieda's are buying the place back with their casino winnings. At least we gave the Indians the gambling concessions. You rotten thieves won't even give the Palistinians that.
Shalom.

Mike D.| 10.28.11 @ 3:44PM

Sieg Heil.

Martin Treptow| 10.27.11 @ 5:04PM

W.
Respectfully: From which constitutional right does Roe v. Wade derive? Pleeeeease don't say the Right to Privacy, the last refuge of the most ardent Pro-Choicer. Besides which, the Right to Life trumps all others anyway. It, and its' companions Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are in the Preamble for a reason.

Cheers!

W| 10.27.11 @ 5:33PM

Martin,
The opinion is a legal mess, but the bottom line is the right of privacy derived from the emanations and penumbras from various sections of the Constitution. This means there is no clear basis.

But our opinions here do not mean anything because the Supremes decalred abortion a constitutional right based on the right of privacy. And no matter what you read here, or from Newt or Paul, Congress can't limit the jurisdiction of the Court on constitutional rights.

The only way to protect life from conception is to amend the constitution or the Supremes have to reverse Roe and the other cases and state that abortion is not protected by the Constitution. The amendment is the only sure way.

If the Supremes reverse the issue goes back to the states. The states will pass restrictions but no state will outlaw it completely. So you will still have abortions.

An amendment, while difficult, is the only way to protect life from conception.

JR| 10.27.11 @ 12:29PM

Dude what does Isreal have to do with this issue?

Mike D.| 10.27.11 @ 1:28PM

Nothing, absolutely nothing.

sirbourbon| 10.27.11 @ 12:49PM

It's interesting that Newt "leave 'em crying at the hospital" Gingrich has latched on to Article III, section 2 of the US constitution. When the great doctor Ron Paul's introduced his bill using Art.III, section 2 to trump the Supreme court's appeallate jurisdiction, Gingrich paid as much attention to it as he paid to his wife who was recovering from cancer surgery, he still left her for another woman. Now the Newtster is pretending to be a constitutionalist even though he ignored the pleas of his constituents that called and wrote to him to co-sponsor Paul's bill that contained the language in Art III section 2. Newt refused to help bring this baby to birth on the floor of the House.

Newt is the same dog liar that he was when he gave his sick wife the brush off that was recovering in that hospital bed. He only cares about using people not helping them. Babies are just a convenient way to get votes for Newt by pretending he'll dash the court's jurisdiction with the hammer of Artcle III, section two. But Paul used this part of the Constitution first, long before Newt the lizard ever thought of putting on these new constitutionalist colors he's just recently in the last week or so been parading around to impress Right To Lifers.

Get a life, Newt,and go back to your dark hole or wherever, but keep out of humans' world.

Tiddly| 10.27.11 @ 1:06PM

Its does not require an aphostrophe.

It's means "it is."

Annoys me.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 1:15PM

Winking at you, its misuse irritates me, too.

Heehaw.

Margie| 10.28.11 @ 12:17PM

Typo's happen.
Or is it typos happen?

RCV| 10.28.11 @ 10:12PM

"typos happen". Apostrophe only when indicating possession.

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 9:18AM

Frum is an intellectual lightweight with zero influence in the Conservative movement. He's a useful idiot for the Left.

Comparing abortion to prohibition is logically incoherent.

Why us TASOnline dignifying a fool like Frum with an entire article?

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 9:39AM

Doc;

You betcha! Frum is a National Review refugee, selling the "I'm a thinking conservative who will trash any conservative anywhere for a price" talk to any liberal outlet who will pay for it.

And another thing, any judge who'd agree that cutting from whole cloth a right to privacy conferring the right to end a human life in its most incontrovertibly innocent and undefensible, vulnerable state is not going to be a strict constitutional constructionalist. By any stretch.

P. S. Lookit Mr. Lawler's photo. I'm thinking his personal experience is a little bit abbreviated, grayhairwise...Or he hasn't been mugged hard enough yet. Sorry Joe, we're just saying you forgot to check out who told you David Frum is anything other than a statist shill.

S Francis Jr.| 10.27.11 @ 9:47AM

You are exactly right, Doc. Conservatives should turn their backs on him and his 14 or so followers that gather at his tree fort on Foxhall Road.

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 9:55AM

Ever visited Frum's website?

It's a shrine to cowardly RINO/CINO impulses.

Any RINO/CINO cliche you can think of, Frum supports.

S Francis Jr.| 10.27.11 @ 11:54AM

Yes. I used to occasionally post there. Two-thirds of Frum's posters were Daily Kos/Mother Jones/Huffington Post liberals and most of the rest socially liberals moderates, the sort that wishes that the Republican Party would return to the heady days of Henry Cabot Lodge, Earl Warren, Leverett Saltonstall, Clifford Case, Jacob Javits, Hugh Scott and Charles "Mac" Mathias. Ms. Frum-Crittenden's site is worthless.

Quartermaster| 10.27.11 @ 6:05PM

Unfortunately, the neocon congress is in full session. Unless you like food fights reading below will depress rather than enlighten.

None of the neocon lot has shown themselves able to actually argue. All to often they are representative of conservatives 9at they think so) and if they are, then it's no wonder the left has been able to send the country to the brink. As they show, they are part of the left.

Frank Drackman| 10.27.11 @ 6:37AM

OK, in my younger medical days I worked part time in a "Women's Health Clinic".
and save the Death Threats, I didn't DO the actual abortions, just did the paperwork, you know, following orders, Mein Herr. Someones gotta listen to the heart, lungs, make sure there actually pregnant, make sure the moneys not counterfeit.
And in the 80's they didn't have all that anti-counterfeit technology, just a stupid pen that was yellow on good bills, brown on bad..
Which I had a hard time remembering till someone said just remember, "Brown is Bad"
It took several more years of training to be able to kill babies, which only happened on tuesdays and thursdays.
I worked Monday and Fridays, as in most service businesses, the busiest days..
Actually prevented quite a few A-words, and if your in the Tampa area and someone steals your car, don't blame me, blame his mama with the Sickle Cell.
Cause did you know Sickle Cell Anemia patients have a high chance of bleeding to death from simple outpatient surgical procedures?
Pregnancy too, but thats not the Abortion-ists problem.
He didn't want no problems, and wouldn't kill the babies of anyone who checked any "Yes" boxes on the medical history form.
Except the "Are you pregnant" box, you had to check that one.

Frank

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 9:41AM

Thanks for being such a helpful guy. I'm sure you will be rewarded for your efforts.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 9:42AM

Where do you stand with respect to prosecuting Nazi concentration camp guards?

W| 10.27.11 @ 5:52PM

DTOM, this guy is not serious, he thinks he is funny with the sly racist jokes.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 6:19PM

Someone should point out to him that his "sense of humor" is lacking both "sense" and "humor". It's got lots of "of" though.

Teaghan| 10.27.11 @ 6:40AM

Our candidates need to stay away from this and other social issues during the election unless asked. Abortion is a lightening rod that could cost us the election.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 9:51AM

You bet Teaghan! God forbid someone with actual conservative principles in the Presidency would be such a disaster!

All of the above is in king-sized, SARCASM font!

I mean look at Obama, he's got lots of principles, all socialist, statist, etc.

Teaghan,

Can you possibly be serious?

We need another unprincipled President?

You cannot possibly be serious.

The President is not "in charge" of abortion. It is up to the legislature to take it back from the courts. Herman Cain was trying to make it a non-issue for the Presdential campaign by deferring it to others. He obviously needs to work on that.

Here's a suggestion for him:

I guy I know was running for mayor in a midwestern city during 2003 as a Republican. The democratic-endorsing newspaper's reporter asked him, do you favor the Iraq war. His answer? "As your mayor, I will never, ever declare war on anybody!"

Mr. Cain might say, I will never do any abortions, nor will I vote for any abortions, nor will I write any court decisions for any abortions. That is all up to others. Would I sign such legislation? Show it to me and I'll tell you - that's a hypothetical.

Michael Tomlinson| 10.27.11 @ 7:15AM

It might behoove someone to explain to Mitt Romney and his alter ego Herman Cain (both who refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony pro-life pledge) that large numbers of us who are not single issue voters also want candidates who will appoint pro-life judges to the Federal bench and not just mouth pro-life phrases like "I'm 100% pro-life," but at the same make statements in support of the pro-choice/abortion agenda.

As we saw in 2008 some inexperienced and untested Tea Party candidates found it easier to win the GOP's Senate nomination based on nothing than it was to defeat a weak and easily beatable Democrat like Harry Reid.

Brian Mc| 10.27.11 @ 7:27AM

Since prohibition was a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water, wouldn't a true comparison be the prohibition of copulation outside wedlock? If such were the case and one could enforce such a law, abortions would never need consideration.

So, it's pleasure in moderation vs. do whatever the hell you feel like if it feels good. Hence, we have a stupefied populace lined up at the abortion clinics wondering why there is a push to constantly rain on their parade of pleasure. So, the core issue is Biblical in nature...the body as a temple of the Holy Spirit. The law of gravity will always have its way...no matter how much one finds 'pleasure' in jumping off a cliff. STD's have a life of their own and go a long way in a culture that has lost its moral compass and celebrates copulation outside wedlock.

God is a drag on all the fun, ain't He?

Clint| 10.27.11 @ 7:55AM

The following candidates refused to sign the pledge: Herman Cain, Gov. Jon Huntsman, Gov. Gary Johnson, Gov. Mitt Romney.

http://www.sba-list.org/2012pledge

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 9:57AM

The following candidate signed the "Anti-Extraterrestrial Anal Cavity Inspection" pledge:

Ron Paul.

Romney, Cain, Perry, and Bachman refused to sign. Because they're NOT nuts.

Huntsman is on the fence.

Clint| 10.27.11 @ 10:12AM

Interesting, Exposing American Spectator's Resident Anti-Catholic Cafeteria Christian Bigot Dr.Reich, Attacking Dr. Ron Paul, Who Has Fought AgainsT Roe Vs.Wade For Years & Has Introduced The Sanctity Of Life Bill.

"A Sanctity Of Life Bill would do two things: (1) It would define unborn babies as persons under the law. (2) Under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the US Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the court."

Dr. Ron Paul's : The Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 H.R. 1096.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 11:17AM

Why didn't he do that in his prior 23 years in the House? The situation has not changed in that time.

Dr. Paul "fights" for things using playground and pillow fight tactics. As a Congressman, he's never gotten anything done. Ever.

Will he manage to get his HR 1096 passed in the Republican House. I doubt it, but it'd be a start for Doctor Donothing.

Clint| 10.27.11 @ 11:26AM

More Of DTOM's RINO-CINO & Fellow Traveler Shuck & Jive.

This Troll, Hiding Under The Moniker DTOM , Bloviates Against Dr.Ron Paul & Attacks Dr.Paul For The Years The Dr. Has Fought Against Roe Vs.Wade & Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Bill.

"A Sanctity Of Life Bill would do two things: (1) It would define unborn babies as persons under the law. (2) Under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the US Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the court."

Dr. Ron Paul's : The Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 H.R. 1096.

Sooooooo, Who's You Candidate, Bloviator DTOM ?

Let's Compare What Your Candidate Has Done To Stop Roe Vs.Wade Against Our Tea Party Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul.

Put Up Or Shut Up DTOM.

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 11:27AM

What's a "cafeteria Christian?"

...this should be interesting...

Clint| 10.27.11 @ 11:32AM

If Ya Gotta Ask, You're One, American Spectator's Resident Lapsed Catholic/Anti-Catholic Serial Bigot, Dr.Reich.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Dr.Reich's Ugly Face.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 11:37AM

Doc,

Ask him what an "intellectual giant" is?

You might be able to tree him with that...

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 1:04PM

OK. So you DON'T know.

Typical.

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 3:21PM

Clint...the "lapsed" Christian...

Margie| 10.27.11 @ 4:25PM

More like anti-Christian.

Clint| 10.27.11 @ 6:53PM

American Spectator's Resident Serial Lapsed Catholic/Anti-Catholic Tag Team Are In The Building.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Joisey Tag Team Bigots' Faces.

Clint| 10.27.11 @ 6:51PM

You're A Fixated Serial Sociopathic Liar & A Serial Lapsed Catholic/ Turned Anti-Catholic Bigot, Dr.Reich.

But, You Already Knew That.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Dr.Reich's Bigot Face.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 6:59PM

Clint, oh Clint<<br />
We're still waiting for you to enlighten us as to some of Dr. Paul's accomplishments.

Found anything yet?

Sue| 10.27.11 @ 7:55AM

A great disservice was forced upon us by the Supreme Court when they declared "abortion" a right in the Constitution. If the issue had made its way through the legislatures of 50 states, the way our governments are designed to work, the public would not have become as polarized.

Also, when the parties co-opted the issue for political power grabs, the true effects/outcomes of abortion took a back seat to "life" period. When a Na tion marches down the path of promoting a "culture of death" it can lead to outcomes harming the very fabric of its society.

Yes, abortion is with us; yes, there are cases when abortion is necessary, but no, the State shouldn't be in the business of promoting it and subsidizing it. That's the real issue before us. We were all taught that life is created at conception and life is destroyed at the point of abortion. We're just kidding outselves when we believe that there's a grey area inbetween. Abortion used as birth control and abortion used as political folly - they are both evil.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 10:36AM

Sue,

So the real issue is who's going to pay to kill the innocent human life, not whether we kill it?

It's necessary, exactly why? Isn't euthanasia necessary, then, too. And fratricide, patricide, matricide, infanticide, are necessary too?

Let's try a little more logic on that. Your unsupported claim that "abortion is necessary" is followed shortly by "we were all taught life is created at conception." Which is it? Pick one. You can't have both. The baby is alive or it's dead. As you point out there's no warm, comfy cozy middle ground. You contradict yourself inside of a single paragraph. Obviously you don't know your own mind. Best be still or others will know how confused you are. Really.

Take some time, figure it out, and get back to us. Thanks.

Scott| 10.27.11 @ 10:43AM

Its not a baby (or fetus) until almost 3 months. Before that its an embryo, of which 1/4th of die and pass on their own.

A human "life" beginning at conception is a religious based position.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 11:39AM

You assert it. Now prove it.

Good luck with that.

Here's a hint for you:

Has there ever been a human being who was not conceived?

Good luck with that.

Slacker| 10.27.11 @ 2:07PM

For the sake of argument, I’ll defend his position.

An acorn isn’t a tree. A fetus is a human in the early stages of development. This fact does not automatically make the fetus a person. Not yet.

As a thought exercise, pretend you are in a burning hospital. You are forced to make a choice. You can grab an infant and run, or you can drag a freezer full of cryopreserved embryos out the door. Obviously you chose the infant. Intuitively we know something is different but, we can’t articulate it. This is inconsistent with the pro-life argument that embryos deserve the same rights as infants.

Has there ever been a person who was not conceived? Yes, in fact they are all around us. If conception means sperm joining egg then 50% of identical twins were not technically “conceived”. This is splitting hares but, mom and dad conceived a single child and destiny produced the second.

Must a person be conceived? No. A person could be cloned and still exist as an independent person. We only do that with plants and animals because it is weird. Still, it is possible.

There is precisely nothing wrong with holding the religious conviction that human life begins at conception. We hold more farfetched religious convictions. That’s faith for you. However, we generally don’t demand non believers honor our religious convictions. This is why I think the pro-life side is perhaps wrong. We call it murder but, this is based upon our religious conviction that personhood begins at conception. We don’t really know everything.

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 4:33PM

"This fact does not automatically make the fetus a person. Not yet."

At WHAT POINT does the "fetus" transform into a person?

Can you identify that time period? Is it the same for everyone?

1 hour after conception? 2 hours? 5?

How about 1 day?

How about a week?

How about the 7th minute of the 7th hour of the 7th day after coitus?

And does a bell or an alarm make a sound to let you know that "BING! It's now a person!"

See where I'm going here? Your statement is nonsensical, and it actually illustrates EXACTLY why abortion should be illegal. TO WIT:

Since we don't know, and NEVER will, the best, safest course of action is to assume that a fertilized embryo IS a human being at the precise moment of conception.

Also...your knowledge of genetics is pretty poor.

BOTH sets of identical twins were "conceived"; the fact that an additional replication took place after the initial conception is absolutely irrelevant. Without the fertilized embryo, none of this would happen. Additionally...using your logic, which one of the twins was "conceived", and which one is the "clone"? Do you know? And if you did, would you confer lesser rights on the one who was not "conceived"? Maybe he/she should be used as an organ-donor for the "original" one??

Abortion is NOT about religion. It's about life. We have laws against murder. Abortion is the taking of a human life. The type of argument you put forth is only done to help the person making the argument rationalize abortion.

In other words, not only is abortion an innately selfish and inhumane act, but RATIONALIZING it is also innately selfish. It's sole purpose is to convince the rationalizer that what they do or support is really okey-dokey, even though they know, deep down inside, that it's not.

And that's why they rationalize. It's a coping mechanism. No one wants to ponder the slaughter of innocent children.

At least those of us who oppose abortion are honest about it. And that's why we want it to stop.

PJ| 10.27.11 @ 5:33PM

1 correction needed in your posting. Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life; not "Abortion is the taking of a human life. " or else you'll be arguing w/the anti-capital punishment people.

W| 10.27.11 @ 6:01PM

If you do not agree that life begins at conception, then any other date is an arbitrary date based on convenience. For example, Peter Singer, Princeton professor, believes you should be allowed to kill you child up to age two.

With partial birth abortion the killing is legal and one or two seconds later when the baby is removed it is illegal to kill the baby. I know Obama supported a law that allowed the baby to die immediately after birth.

Singer's position, while disgusting, is rational and logical given the legality of partial birth abortion, and shows how illogical it is to pick a date other that conception, and the absurd results it causes.

Slacker| 10.27.11 @ 6:11PM

I have no clue when fetus becomes a person, or if heaven is full of aborted babies. Neither do you. It is essentially a religious debate -neither of us can prove the other wrong.

Rationalizing is not wrong. The suject isn't taboo.

Calling abortion murder is entirely useless and counterproductive. The other side sincerely does not think they are dealing with complete human beings. You guys are opposite sides of a category error and I don't know who's right.

At the end of the day the legal fight is intractable because it is impossible for two distinct beings to occupy a single body and both have equal rights. Pro-lifers simply want to reorder who gets priority. They have had no success but fight on. They have smashed many conservatives along the way. Democrats escape unharmed.

My views piss off both sides so I must be fair.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 6:30PM

Nice work, Doc.

I think getting them to face and answer the question of whether any human being has ever existed without conception forces them to confront the points that you so eloquently made.

However, my repeated asking this one question like a stubborn seven year old, forces them back to the fundamental question, but with them doing all the work.

(Hint: I am forcing them to prove a negative that they know is not true - a pretty Sysphean task, even for the most ardent proponent of our permanent open season on little humans.)

Keep the faith, baby!

Big Tony| 10.27.11 @ 8:03AM

My personal opinion is that the abortion issue is much closer to the slavery issue that divided the country. I know pro-life people who would fight a real war over abortion if it came to that. However I don't know anyone who would put their life on the line to either stop the consumption of alcohol or allow abortions to proceed unhindered.

Clint| 10.27.11 @ 8:08AM

Dr.Ron Paul Signed The SBA Pro-Life Pledge.

http://www.sba-list.org/2012pledge

Margie| 10.27.11 @ 4:26PM

Ron Paul also blames America for the terrorists being terrorists, the poooor, poooor babies.
And it's why he will NEVER become President.

Jack in Wi| 10.27.11 @ 5:10PM

Margie: You are a bloodthirsty old hag. Abortion is far worse then 3000 people killed in one day. It is 3300 people killed everyday. Your love of war and hatred of your fellow humans is indeed disgusting. Read up on the subject of blowback.

Margie| 10.27.11 @ 5:33PM

Disgusting is what you are, punk.
Repent now, else you are on your way to Hell along with the other blatant liars here.
That IS where God sends liars, you know?

Mike D.| 10.28.11 @ 3:46PM

You accuse somebody of hatred of your fellow humans? From you? You jew hating piece of shit wrote the book on it.

Clint| 10.27.11 @ 6:47PM

American Spectator's Resident Lapsed Catholic/Turned Anti-Catholic Maniac Margie, Is All PMS'Y Again Because Dr. Ron Paul Signed The SBA Pro-Life Pledge And Herman Cain Did Not Sign The Pro-Life Pledge

http://www.sba-list.org/2012pledge

Margie| 10.27.11 @ 6:56PM

Are you kidding me?
Cain is a true individual who doesn't feel the need to sign up to anything or join a cult.
I give him kudos.
LOL!
Loser boy.

Conserdude| 10.27.11 @ 8:22AM

Who besides David Frum actually cares what David Frum thinks? This man has a chip on his shoulder about conservatives, and passes himself off as some kind of thinker when he's a moron. Gee, maybe the civil rights movement should have just disappeared in the 40's and 50's and maybe we would have gotten the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act done sooner!!

Seek| 10.27.11 @ 12:28PM

Why should "civil rights" legislation be seen as a positive achievement? Look at the consequences.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 12:41PM

Would you care to expand on that thought?

Hmmm?

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 4:21PM

DTOM,

Don't bother, he thinks he's being clever by being provocative...

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 6:32PM

Doc,

You seem to read minds so much better than I do. But then you seem to let them off the hook, sorta.

Yea, I know 'Different strokes', for different folks...

Teflon93| 10.27.11 @ 8:25AM

No need to ban slavery or fight a civil war over it---given just a few more centuries, surely people will keep fewer people as slaves.

Vern Crisler | 10.27.11 @ 8:25AM

Frum's comparison of abortion with Prohibition is ridiculous. Prolifers have always made the apt comparison with slavery. At best Prohibition could be compared with the anti-smoking zealotry we have today -- witness the idiotic brouhaha over the Cain smoking add.

Prohibitionism was a combination of misguided evangelicalism and Progressive hostility to the liquor industry. William Jennings Bryan supported Prohibition because, among other things, it was a way of doing battle with greedy capitalists and giving greater control of the economy to government.

Roe v Wade was a fraudulent decision as were many of the decisions of the Supreme Court since the late 1940s. This is because it is based on the fallacious incorporation theory, the idea that the 14th Amended incorporated the Bill of Rights en masse to the States. In fact, the actual incorporation was restricted. Until conservatives and pro-lifers wake up to this usurpation by the Court, we will never be rid of legal abortion.

Dr. X| 10.27.11 @ 8:49AM

Frum is a 100% faux conservative. He's a Canadian Trudeauite socialist with no business commenting on American politics. He's FOS on just about everything.

That being said, this article does correctly argue, as I have done for years, that abortion is properly an issue of Federalism, and that states, which license physicians and hospitals and medical procedures under the Tenth Amendment police powers, properly should deal with it.

That is the great problem of Roe. Roe invented a "constitutional right" to "privacy" that banned states from regulating licensed physicians performing a medical procedure for money in intrastate commerce. The constitutional "logic" -- never mind the morality, even -- in Roe is so fraudulent it is astonishing. The Court even cites the "stigma" of unwed motherhood and the "psychological harm" of the pregnancy in a constitutional decision -- (as if Madison and Hamilton were discussing those things at the Convention in 1787!)

The fact that the public has accepted this fraud is scary. It's no different than public acquiescence to Hitler's Enabling Act. And there's nothing to be done about it short of full-blown revolution, which ain't gonna happen.

That's why I've given up on the pro-lifers. Their actions are incommensurate with the gravity of the situation. Roe is nothing less than a constitutional coup to legitimize murder. If they believe that, as they claim to, waving signs at street corners, praying, and getting spat on and heckled by tattooed left-wing pro-choice freaks ain't gonna change a damn thing.

I don't accept abortion, but I accept that the State has won by using its power to enforce the abortion regime, and the only alternative is a stronger, countervailing power to put the pro-choice lunatics in their place -- which I don't foresee.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 11:57AM

Einstein! This is a democratic republic. Those sign wavers are doing EXACTLY what they are supposed to be doing, exercising their first amendment right to free political speech.

Countervailing power is what, murdering those performing legal abortions? Is it silencing the left wing loonies with tear gas and rubber bullets?

You are confusing the ends and the means here, pal. They have a right to their stupid, confused, baseless beliefs. But we have to listen to them, clarify things for them, and CONVINCE them of the error of their thinking. That's our system. This is government of, by, and for the people.

Countervailing power that is not delivered in cool, cold, logic is decidedly the wrong answer. You aver that "the State has won by using its power to enforce the abortion regime."

Dude, WE are the State, not FDA, not SCOTUS. It's those sign wavers who will influence voters to change the wrong-headed status quo to the right answer.

I'll pass on the countervailing power. As should most Americans who understand that this is OUR government. Look around, it's Obama who's using countervailing power to take our rights away! We need to take our government back, because it's gotten itself all confused.

Dr. X| 10.27.11 @ 8:37PM

"Dude"? Look, I'm not the President of the United States, and this is not the Jon Stewart show, OK?

Now... for your information, the Supreme Court usurped the will of the people of 46 states in 1973. It's decision is enforced by armed U.S.Marshals. Exactly how is that a "government by the people?"

Rockerbabe| 10.28.11 @ 4:34PM

No, what you don't want to accept, this that women, like men ae entitled to bodily integrity and to make their own decisions without coersion from the state or religious group. Your like of respect for the autonomy of women and their own welfare is what is astounshing. Anti-abortion laws are about controlling pregnant women, not "saving" babies.

Anyway, the issue is really moot. Most American women over the age of 21 have cellphones, credit cards, debit cards, access to cash, passports, iPads, computers with internet access, friends,etc.
Most of us can google and bing with the best male on the planet. So find a legitimate abortion provider will not be a problem and most of us can make travel arrangement without the assistance of the "little man". It will only the the 20% of so of women at the lower end of the economic scale that will be affected by anti-abortion laws. And, as we all know, repugs do not like poor people and will do nothing to help them.

cowgirl| 10.27.11 @ 9:47AM

Comparing prohibiton to abortion. Right. Have another drink Frum.

Bill| 10.27.11 @ 9:53AM

David Frum argues that "today's political factions (will work) together to mitigate the circumstances that lead to unwanted pregnancies."

But they won't; the prevailing pro-abortion mantra is that people will have unprotected sex and women will get pregnant with unwanted children, and therefore abortion is necessary, and, since necessary, should be (and is) a fundamental right. The pro-abortion faction is not even comfortable with the teaching of abstinence in the schools.

One of the humorous moments in the past 20 years was Bill Clinton's speech in which he said that abortion should rare; no person in his right mind believed that Bill Clinton was sincere about that for a second.

Scott| 10.27.11 @ 10:39AM

Teaching abstinence is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Making the discussion of proper birth control use amoung young people normal, rather than "sinful", or negative, reduces abortions.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 11:42AM

Really?

Please show one single, solitary instance where abstinence has resulted in an abortion.

Rape ain't abstinence.

We're gonna run out of good luck, the way this is going...

Seek| 10.27.11 @ 12:30PM

A lot of young adults openly laugh at the abstinence "education" they received in high school only a few years before. Like Head Start, the effect is temporary -- lucky for us.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 12:39PM

We all laughed at the lame-o sex education film the RD in my land grant state school dormitory showed us. It was grainy, creepy, tawdry, had nothing to do with marriage, and started with a young couple riding a motorcycle. Whenever anyone who'd missed it asked anyone who'd seen it about it, there was this universal response: "First you get a motorcycle..." THAT was laughable.

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 1:10PM

As Conservatives, we're not easily swayed by the opinions of the "youth" of America.

That's because most of them are completely ignorant due to a lack of experience in practically anything.

If we ended government subsidies that enabled young girls to obtain abortion, or raise their kids on the public teat...AND if we REQUIRED that any woman

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 1:19PM

Doc,

You were going to say,

"..that any woman having a child out of wedlock identify the father so that he could share the responsibility for raising the child, this would be a much better world."

weren't you?

Doctor Right| 10.27.11 @ 3:21PM

...Something like that!

...stupid forum...

W| 10.27.11 @ 6:05PM

You can make it a condition of accepting welfare. In Pa if you are on welfare, the mother has to file a compaint for support against the father. If welfare pays, for example, $300 a month, then the first $300 recovered goes to welfare and anything over the 300 goes to mom.

Skippy| 10.27.11 @ 5:20PM

We call those who laughed "single parents".
Or, another term is "welfare recipient".
I'm partial to "loser with a lifetime to dwell on their arrogance".

Bill| 10.27.11 @ 12:08PM

I gather you subscribe to the position that people are just going to have sex, therefore we should just accept that as the normative, default, rule of things.

It's true that SOME will have sex under the most foolish and thoughtless possible circumstances, but the history of the first half of the 20th Century in America suggests that a focus on abstinence will keep the illegitimacy rate 'way down.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 12:33PM

And the second half of the twentieth century proved that sex education and birth control would keep illegitimacy up.

So Scott, we're waiting over here! Give us your best shot! Let's hear your sound reasoning for your position.

Or, you could just admit that maybe you need to do a little more thinking on this one. As a young teenager, I naively thought that abortion was okay, as I considered the difficulty of the situation should an unwanted pregnancy ever intrude on my life. My older brother asked me those same questions. I was forced to face my selfish, immoral, irrational feelings and replace them with moral, rational truth. Haven't looked back since.

Skippy| 10.27.11 @ 5:23PM

Men supporting abortion are merely irresponsible miscogynists.
They support it so they can get laid without having to care.
About the baby or the girl.

Petronius| 10.27.11 @ 11:35AM

The Roe Decision is a reflection of who controls the legal establishment of this country: the Justices wives!

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 11:45AM

Dude,

Same argument could be made for Congress and the Presidency.

Anybody hear Moochelle say she made the President stop smoking, yesterday? Remember his girlish first pitch back in 09?

What does this mean with reference to say, oh, Nancy Pelosi? Or Hillary? I'm just asking.

fmm| 10.27.11 @ 11:37AM

That we even have this problem is a resounding statement that the human race is a depraved and failed species. Abortion is not the only means available to satisfy the selfish desires of the irresponsible and it is murder.

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.27.11 @ 12:19PM

Loved ones,
In the final analysis, God...our creator and sustainer... holds those little unborn babies in His hands.

One tragedy is the adults whose life is scarred thereafter.

...But again, I cannot seem to forget Elvis' song "In the Ghetto".

...then I think of the millions of children born each year...outside the US...with no hope whatsoever.

I have to believe they are in God's hands also.

Margie| 10.27.11 @ 4:37PM

Who exactly are you addressing as loved ones?
What are you, the Pope?
Justifying abortion, are you?
Of course they're in God's Hands.. that is, the little babies.
The Mothers still need to repent, according to the Word of God.
You justify just about everything in your life, don't you, Ken?
Including slandering another Christian, a sister nonetheless.
That alcohol that you imbibe against the will of the Lord has contributed to your fantasy view of reality~ of which you seem to not be able to tell the difference between the two.
Let's see~ blatant slander, thinking you're like the Pope and you have a "following". all the while despising genuine Christians who preach the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, and clacking with the disgusting Papists here.

"A faithful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies." Pro. 14:5.

Satan| 10.28.11 @ 4:23PM

Margie, Margie, let it go. Nobody wants to talk to you her, find another place, I gotta find another place for you...

RichTex| 10.27.11 @ 12:41PM

In a perfect world, we’d have the Supreme Court admit that Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision, not just because it sanctioned a terrible crime, but also for the violence it does to our constitutional structure. (And also I have a personal interest in this case because I knew Henry Wade, who was a fellow church member, and I was a good friend of his daughter when we were both in high school.) But unfortunately, that isn’t likely to occur anytime soon.

However, there is a relatively simple way any state can effectively end abortions within its jurisdiction regardless of what the Court says. How does a government cause a shortage of any product or service? The answer is price controls; it works every time it’s tried. What if a state imposed price controls on abortions? Say maybe, $50 per procedure? How many abortions would then be performed? Planned Parenthood certainly isn’t going subsidize them. They're in it for the money.

Now because court challenges can be expected of such a law, the legislative history supporting it must be done right. Bring in a lot of crying women for the committee hearings where they bemoan the fact that they simply can’t afford abortions at the market rate and demand that the Legislature do something to make abortions affordable to poor women. That would leave the liberals to fall back on the argument that the government has no power to regulate prices. Fat chance they would do that.

Appleby| 10.27.11 @ 12:54PM

Actually, the reason that abortion and its supporters are both declining, is that the pro-life people are the ones having children; and the children of pro-lifers are more likely to be pro-life.

All the pro-choice people are choosing not to have children, or the children they have are more likely to be pro-death, so inevitably the number of those who choose death will diminish.

DTOM| 10.27.11 @ 1:22PM

I've long held the sentiment that the easiest pro-life argument is with the children of selfish, egocentric parents. They readily understand that they were lucky not to have been viewed as inconvenient, in utero...

Rockerbabe| 10.30.11 @ 11:33PM

Wishful thinking on your part; there is absolutely not factual data to support your assertions.

Ted Shepherd| 10.27.11 @ 10:45PM

The author wrote "A majority of states would immediately restrict or simply ban abortion procedures, leading to a steep drop-off in the number of abortions performed." Where is the proof of that? The statement would be more believable with the addition of a single word: A majority of states would immediately restrict or simply ban abortion procedures, leading to a steep drop-off in the number of abortions performed legally.

POST American| 10.27.11 @ 10:47PM

--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------

"DO you understand what it means?
That the very highest EEL-eat, the Rockefeller
and Ford and Carn--EGG--he TAX FREE
foundations, decided many decades ago
to 're-engineer' our society for EUGENICS?
----To systematically program the young
--esp. the women ---to turn on their off-spring,
in the name of 'pleasure'? ---'convenience'?
-----'making it'? DO you understand? we've
been programmed by psychopaths into a
psychopathic vision of society and ourselves?
Culturally, --MORALLY ----SPIRITUALLY
---do you REALIZE what's been done?
DO YOU---------? ---------ANY of you???"
-ALAN WATT
(fearless online coverage of the CON)

-------Well, --------------DO YOU????

Dan Mathewson| 10.28.11 @ 7:00PM

Nope. I don't believe a word you post.

moncler pull | 10.28.11 @ 5:25AM

so.....

Kevin| 10.28.11 @ 6:10AM

It is in our nation's interests to re-illegalize abortions. Imagine the massive job creation potential in re-creating all those back-alley abortionists that were wrongly put out of work by Roe v Wade. This travesty must be undone forthwith!

Rockerbabe| 10.28.11 @ 4:18PM

You have to be kidding. Women will not surrender their rights to their bodily automony and to make their own decisions, just to make men more comfortable with politics. Why would we? What's the benefit to us? Forced childbearing is akin to reproductive slavery [in the classical terms, slavery is forcing a person to work for another against their will and for no payment, etc]. The "problem with Roe vs Wade" is that there are a lot of folks who really do not respect women and their rights to their own bodies. Abortion laws are not about protecting babies, they are about controlling pregnant women; what they do, who they do, how they care for themselves, their futures, their medical care and the very risks they take with their life and very survival. Rape, incest and pregnancy-gone-bad be damed!

NO ONE would ever dare suggest that a male citizen be forced to physiologically support another being against his will. No one, at present is forced to give a pint of blood against their will, submit to tissue testing to aid in transplantation, apply to be on any tissue registery, endure research testing on drugs for the efficacy, etc. And, no one is forced to give organ donations even after death without written permission for the deceased or their next of kin. And you and others propose taking away a woman's right to make her own decisions about a pregnancy and her very life? I don't think so.

All this personhood crap is just that, crap. One gets "personhood" when one is born.

POST American| 10.28.11 @ 11:21PM

"---Understand, even according to the Hindu,
the MOST sacred duty of the older men
---is to the UNBORN."

----------HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012----------

-----------------TICK ----TICK ----TICK-----TICK

Rockerbabe| 10.30.11 @ 4:17PM

Post American: just what have you been sniffing; you make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

More Articles by Joseph Lawler

More Articles From Special Report

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

June 17, 2013 | Patrick O'Hannigan

The Grey Lady’s Grudging Abortion Admission

June 14, 2013 | George Neumayr

Game of Thrones on Overkill?

June 13, 2013 | Anne Hobson

Curbing the IRS

June 12, 2013 | Peter Ferrara

When Art Overwhelmed Dance

June 7, 2013 | Laura Genero

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/27/lving-in-the-roe-v-wade-world

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|78 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|92 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|52 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|23 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|26 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|17 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|28 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|87 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 4:55PM

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 4:01PM

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 2:46PM

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 2:24PM

Boehner to Enforce Hastert Rule with Immigration Reform

Jordan Gonzalez | 1:10PM

U.S. to Restart Negotiations with Taliban

Kaylin Bugos | 12:01PM

Sen. Paul’s Immigration Amendments Boost Ballot Integrity, Border Security

Kevin Mooney | 11:56AM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.