Lawmakers do not sustain USSC decision on Abortion

[Psychoblues]

Even pResident shrub said it was a “settled issue”.



WASHINGTON (AFP) - Two US lawmakers introduced legislation Thursday aimed at codifying a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, one day after the Supreme Court banned a controversial late-term abortion procedure.

The proposed law would codify abortion rights for the first time, said Democratic Representative Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), who joined the effort launched by Senator Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record).

The legislation "would bar government -- at any level -- from interfering with a woman's fundamental right to choose to bear a child, or to terminate a pregnancy," Nadler said.

"We can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to protect a woman's constitutional right to choose" he said.

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070419...usticeabortion


Why do we keep arguing about it?

[avatar4321]

Let them, the legislation would be completely unconstitutional because the federal government has no authority to enact such legislation.

[theHawk]

The proposed law would codify abortion rights for the first time, said Democratic Representative Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), who joined the effort launched by Senator Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record).
.............

"We can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to protect a woman's constitutional right to choose" he said.

Why "codify" the right to get an abortion if its supposedly already in the constitution?

Could these libs possibly contradict themselves anymore?

[Kathianne]

Even pResident shrub said it was a “settled issue”.



WASHINGTON (AFP) - Two US lawmakers introduced legislation Thursday aimed at codifying a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, one day after the Supreme Court banned a controversial late-term abortion procedure.

The proposed law would codify abortion rights for the first time, said Democratic Representative Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), who joined the effort launched by Senator Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record).

The legislation "would bar government -- at any level -- from interfering with a woman's fundamental right to choose to bear a child, or to terminate a pregnancy," Nadler said.

"We can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to protect a woman's constitutional right to choose" he said.

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070419...usticeabortion


Why do we keep arguing about it?

Funny thing, The SCOTUS was upholding legislation passed by Congress, including Reid and other Democratic leaders.

[Gaffer]

They are just worried about losing control of the supreme kings.

[Little-Acorn]

The Supremes only said that a law against partial birth abortion, wasn't unconstitutional.

They didn't say it was mandatory.

Laws for PBA are also not unconstitutional.

[darin]

I wonder when Lawmakers will uphold a FATHER's "right" to terminate a pregnancy?

[5stringJeff]

I'm all for abortion being decided in the legislative branch of the government, instead of the judicial branch. If the Democrats think they can pass a law allowing PBA to become legal, they should go ahead and try.

[theHawk]

I'm all for abortion being decided in the legislative branch of the government, instead of the judicial branch. If the Democrats think they can pass a law allowing PBA to become legal, they should go ahead and try.

Agreed. Let the people decide about abortion, not a court.

[avatar4321]

Agreed. Let the people decide about abortion, not a court.

They cant let the people decide on the matter. Because then abortion wouldnt be legal in alot of states or it would be severely limited.

[loosecannon]

Let them, the legislation would be completely unconstitutional because the federal government has no authority to enact such legislation.

I don't think you really want to advance this argument because doing so would enable the same argument to be used in hundreds of other applications that won't support your particular cause.

AND the first such example will be states enforcing laws making abortion protected under state law and the SC ruling rendered moot by your very argument.

[loosecannon]

Why "codify" the right to get an abortion if its supposedly already in the constitution?

Could these libs possibly contradict themselves anymore?

Because the right to abortion is based on a SC interp of the inherent rights to privacy, not on any specific listing in the const.

That doesn't prevent Congress from codifying it either as a right or as a right reserved to the fed gummit via a law which can be subject to the SC rulings or an amendment which can not.

[loosecannon]

They are just worried about losing control of the supreme kings.

The constitution trumps the supreme kings.


The states and the congress have the power to over rule them with amendments.

[loosecannon]

I wonder when Lawmakers will uphold a FATHER's "right" to terminate a pregnancy?

or to NOT terminate it. Which is my one and only gripe about abortion rights. Men have none.

[loosecannon]

They cant let the people decide on the matter. Because then abortion wouldnt be legal in alot of states or it would be severely limited.

They can't allow the people to rule because the constitution provides no vehicle for the citizens to effect direct democracy.

We are a republic. Only representatives get real votes.