Canada Free Press -- ARCHIVES

Because without America, there is no free world.

Return to Canada Free Press

U.S. Supreme Court, partial-birth abortion

What Part of "Unalienable Right" Do they not Understand?

By J.B. Williams

Monday, April 23, 2007

The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the Bush administration ban on partial-birth abortion.

Partial-birth abortion is just what its name indicates and it is the most hideous medical procedure known to modern man. A full or near full-term baby is dragged by its feet from its mothers womb, leaving only the head inside so as to claim that the child is not yet born and therefore, is not yet a child. The doctor then inserts a sharp instrument into the base of the skull thrusting upwards, piercing the brain stem and ultimately causing death.

For decades, two very determined opposing forces have debated the constitutionality of abortion in all its forms. The two sides had two very different reactions to the news that the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of upholding the ban on this particularly gruesome form of murder.

Every Republican presidential hopeful, even those with more liberal social views, praised the courts decision to protect babies from this brutal form of homicide. The Democrat presidential hopefuls had a different reaction though...

"I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women," Barack Obama

"The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women," John Edwards said, adding; "This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election."

"It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito." Senator Clinton...

Yet the most important part of the discussion seldom comes up...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, [without which, there can be no] Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The mere fact that this debate is taking place at all is a violation of our most fundamental American principles. If we do not respect and protect innocent human life above all else, as a God given Right - unalienable by men, then nothing in our Declaration of Independence or Constitution means anything at all.

According to our Declaration as an Independent free nation, men have no such right to deliberate the value of another individual life, or alienate a right which is endowed by our Creator.

If men, be they citizens, legislators or members of the justice system, have the power to alienate the most fundamental Right in this nation, a Right to life, then they have the power to alienate all individual rights and this nation is neither free nor civilized.

Murder, the intentional taking of an innocent defenseless life against its will, not in self defense, has never been an individual "Right" in any civilized society, especially in America.

This is my studied professional opinion. I have a personal opinion as well...

Abortion is murder, except in the cases of rape or forced incest, where the "woman's clear Right to choose" has been taken from her by force. In this case, abortion becomes the last line of self-defense for that woman, to avoid being victimized the balance of her life by bearing an unwanted child that is only the result of a violent crime.

This combined with cases where a mother's life is truly at risk, in need of self-defense, accounts for only 2 percent of all abortions in America today. The rest, 98 percent are legalized murder.

The fact that a handful of judges, an oligarchy, decided it was a worthwhile practice that should be legal, does not make it right. Nearly every violent crime has a logical reason behind it, a good argument for the decision to act violently against another, always in ones self interest.

Congress alone has the right and authority to "make law" in America. But Congress has made no such law legalizing abortion. The President has signed no such bill into law. The Constitution indicates that even if they did, such an act would likely violate States Right's under the Tenth Amendment.

A literal handful, five to be exact, judges decided for 300 million people, (the rule of a few over many), a few indirect cases that have since been used by secular socialists to claim we have some unwritten constitutional Right to kill our offspring. This is not within the constitutional powers of the judicial branch to decide. These powers belong to the people through their elected legislative branch alone.

As a result, no such Right exists and according to our founding documents, only our Creator, the one who endowed us with an unalienable Right to life, has the power to take that Right away.

As good Americans who believe in upholding those founding principles, we have no choice but to make certain that those unalienable Rights remain unalienable... and we must begin with the Right to life, without which, no other Rights can exist.

If the right to life, endowed by our Creator, unalienable by men, can be removed by the stroke of a pen, then tell me, what other individual Rights are safe from that pen?

Five of the current Supreme Court judges fully understand and respect this very simple truth. The other four clearly do not. Republican presidential candidates clearly understand and respect this simple reality, but clearly, secular socialist Democrats do not.

The American people will get the final say in November of 2008.


Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement