Posts tagged: Roe v. Wade

7 Reasons Neil Gorsuch’s Nomination is Only the Beginning of Taking Back the Judiciary

Neil Gorsuch

Written by Daniel Horowitz

This week, President Donald Trump fulfilled his promise to nominate a very qualified and intelligent conservative judge. Neil Gorsuch is likely a very good pick. However, given the past history, the enormous post-constitutional pressure even in some circles of the conservative legal movement, and so much terrible court precedent, it is yet to be determined if Gorsuch has the resolve to not get sucked into the swamp.

This point was best encapsulated in a statement from U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla. (B, 87%), himself a conservative constitutionalist lawyer. After praising Gorsuch’s background, he noted that there is still more to see:

Perhaps the most important quality for a constitutionalist Supreme Court justice is something that Scalia demonstrated in spades: backbone. There will be times when the proper reading of the Constitution will diverge sharply from the conventional wisdom of D.C.

Continue Reading

Roe v. Wade Is A ‘Jealous God’ That Demands Blood And Generates Rage

Written by Tom Neven

Is there a constitutional principle so sacrosanct that it can abide no exceptions? Perhaps the First Amendment? Nope. Courts have placed reasonable restrictions on free speech and the practice of religion. You can’t libel someone, nor can you sacrifice live animals. The Second Amendment? No again, as any number of gun laws attest. One can find reasonable exceptions to just about every constitutional principle.

But 43 years ago, trawling through the penumbra and emanations of the Constitution, Justice Harry Blackmun found an inviolable right that had somehow evaded the Founding Fathers: the right to kill a child in utero—mere inches from being fully born, even—for any reason or no reason. Read Roe v. Wade some time; you’ll see it’s a conclusion in search of reasons, an exercise in “raw judicial power,” in the words of dissenting Justice Byron White.

Continue Reading

Law That Hillary Clinton Wants Repealed Saved Over 2 Million Lives

ppclinton

Written by Michael Gryboski

A law restricting the federal funding of abortion that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton supports repealing is credited by a recent study with saving more than 2 million lives.

The Hyde Amendment, a federal law passed almost exactly 40 years ago in September 1976, prohibits the federal coverage of most abortion procedures.

Hyde is credited with preventing the abortion of approximately 2 million people over the past four decades, according to a report published by the pro-life research group the Charlotte Lozier Institute.

Michael J. New, Ph.D., associate scholar at the Lozier Institute and associate professor at Ave Maria University, was the author of the study.

“Over 20 studies in a variety of peer-reviewed academic journals demonstrate the Hyde Amendment and other laws to limit public funding of abortion reduce abortion rates and protect unborn children,” noted New.
Continue Reading

Still ‘Pro-Choice’ After This? Then You Have no Soul

Clarity

Written by J. Matt Barber

Moral clarity alert. The kid gloves are off. Time for some serious soul searching.

You proponents of the torturous live-dismemberment of children in the womb, just knock it off already. Your pro-abortion euphemisms – “pro-choice,” “reproductive freedom,” “women’s rights” and other such propagandist nonsense – have run their shameful course. As you regressive “progressives” like to say, “The science is settled.” Pre-born babies are objectively and empirically distinct persons with emotions, autonomy (though in a dependent stage of human development, not unlike post-birth babies) and the unalienable human rights intrinsic to all human beings.

Watch this amazing 4D ultrasound video posted on the “Meddy Bear” Facebook page and, absent some deeply-rooted, self-deluded and pathological ability to rationalize (a disturbing hallmark of the moral-relativist cultural and spiritual phenomenon), you will be left no other “choice” than to admit that the “pro-choice” myth is as dead as the death it represents.… Continue Reading

Obama’s Supremely Bad Nominee

garland-obama

Written by Gary L. Bauer

At the White House this morning, President Obama announced his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court — Judge Merrick Garland of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The media are dutifully attempting to spin Garland as a “centrist” or a “consensus choice.” Consider this headline from the Los Angeles Times: “It’s Going To Be Hard For Conservatives To Oppose The Careful, Moderate Merrick Garland.”

Don’t be fooled, my friends. Barack Obama was never going to nominate a moderate to the U.S. Supreme Court. It won’t be hard at all to oppose Merrick Garland.

There was considerable concern in recent days among far-left activists that Obama might nominate Garland. After all, they kept hearing about how moderate he was, and they really want a dedicated liberal.… Continue Reading

Modified by Matthew Medlen.com