Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Gregg Jackson :: Townhall.com Columnist
It's Time For a New Strategy To End Abortion Starting With President Bush
by Gregg Jackson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


One favorite and generally accepted definition of insanity is to do something the same way over and over again expecting different results. And so it has been with the pro-life movement.

For the past 30-years the basic strategy to end abortion has been to elect "pro-life" Republicans who, we are frequently told, will put more "pro-life" judges on the courts culminating in the ultimate "overturning" of Roe v Wade-- the 1973 Supreme Court decision which many have speciously claimed "legalized abortion in all fifty states."

Subsequently, Republicans have been responsible for appointing 60% of the federal judiciary including 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices who handed down Roe and her progeny in the first place, and not one of those justices ever argued that the right to life is an unalienable right which neither the federal nor state government may violate.

Under President Bush $2.2 billion in federal funding went to the nation's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. Funding also increased year after year during Bush's two terms in office- a slightly greater increase than under President Clinton.

So here we stand with the same 30-year strategy with the same results, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the establishment strategy of electing more Republicans to put more "pro-life" judges on the bench has been an unmitigated failure.

As such, perhaps it would be wise at this point to examine whether or not this strategy was designed, inadvertently or not, to actually end abortion or regulate it; and more importantly, whether or not the tangible actions of those who so gratuitously slap the "pro-life" title on their organizations reflect that strategy.

To end abortion is to do just that--to believe that all life, both born and unborn, is an unalienable right and protect it at all cost. To regulate abortion is to do just that…to arrogantly decide whose life has value and whose does not and thus making it "lawful" to eliminate them accordingly. I would submit here that we have tried the latter and after 40 million innocents slaughtered, logic dictates that we cannot end abortion by "regulating" it.

Still, there are "pro-family" and "pro-life" groups who are now actively engaged in opposing state personhood amendments and supporting pro-abortion politicians and presidential candidates who support tax-payer funded embryonic stem cell research and the Stephen Douglas slavery position that abortion is a "states rights issue."

And self-styled "conservative" and "Christian" legal organizations perpetually concede the liberal lie that courts can "revoke," "overturn" and "strike down" laws despite the fact that the judiciary possesses no such enumerated constitutional authority.

While the leading pro-life and pro-family organizations have raised hundreds of millions of dollars to advance the pro-life "cause" including a quarter of a billion dollars to end the procedure known as "partial birth abortion" (which according to Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, hasn't saved one single life), 1.5 million babies per year continue to be dismembered and discarded in trash receptacles (4,000 babies killed per day).

Isn't it time we rightfully acknowledge what many pro-life and pro-family activists have been saying privately for quite some time now--that the old incramentalist strategy of regulating abortion has failed?

While I support state and federal "human life" and "personhood" amendments, the fact of the matter is that we don't need to amend any constitution to protect human life because the inalienable right to human life is already guaranteed in our founding documents including our founding national charter which is part of the Organic Law of the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence, as well as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution (see Preamble, 5th and 14th amendments).

So instead of wasting precious time and financial resources attempting to pass human life and personhood amendments that leading "pro-life" organizations such as National Right to Life (NRTL) have actively thwarted (oddly claiming that "it's not the right time" to pass personhood/human life amendments to state constitutions) we should instead focus our efforts on demanding that our elected representatives uphold their constitutional sworn oath to protect and defend the inalienable right to life. It's that simple.

President Bush claims to be pro-life.

So, I propose that all conservative pro-family and pro-life organizational leaders, lawyers and media pundits unify and call on President Bush to uphold his constitutional oath to protect and defend the inalienable right to life by issuing an executive order in his last remaining month of his presidency to close down every abortion clinic in the country and to call on the Congress (under Article 1 Section 8) to use the national guard if necessary to enforce the Supreme Law of the Land. President Kennedy used the National Guard to ensure the safety of two black students who Governor George Wallace barred from entering the University of Alabama in June of 1963. President Bush could certainly do the same to close down the nation's abortion mills.

President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution which guarantees the unalienable right to life for every American citizen. If that unalienable right to life is being violated at the state level, the president has the solemn constitutional obligation to protect and defend the right to life of each individual citizen of each state.

Ok, if President Bush did issue such an executive order wouldn't President Obama reverse it as one of his first official acts?

Of course he would. After all we are talking about Barack "when babies possess human rights is beyond my pay grade" Obama.

And if he did, every pro-life constitutionalist should call for his impeachment and removal from office for violating his oath.

Starting to see a pattern yet?

But Gregg you've gone off the reservation. Even if pro-family /pro-life organizations called for Obama to be impeached and removed from office, it would be highly unlikely considering the Democrat congressional majorities in both houses.

While this is true, it still doesn't absolve pro-lifers of our solemn obligation to demand that every office holder uphold their constitutionally sworn oath to protect and defend the inalienable right to life.

Pro-lifers nation-wide could then push for pro-life governors to issue executive orders in their individual states to close down abortion clinics and criminalize any abortionist who ends the life of any unborn baby.

If such a pro-life governor, like for example, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana would take the lead in merely abiding by his oath and closing down all the abortion clinics in Louisiana, this would go a long way. The courts could rule that such an executive order would most likely be "unconstitutional" but how could enforcing the constitutional right to life be "unconstitutional?" If the court did issue such an unconstitutional opinion, the governor should call for their impeachment and ignore such a lawless "ruling." (Just as Romney, Palin and Schwarzenegger should have done when courts in their states issued similar anti-constitutional opinions regarding gay "marriage," domestic partner benefits and abortion which they all illegally enforced as if actual law) What do truly pro-life governors who believe that every baby possesses an unalienable right to life which no federal or state government may violate have to lose? If they are waiting for Roe to be "overturned," they will be waiting for at least another 40 years given the current make-up of the Supreme Court.

And what about pro-abortion governors who refuse to uphold their oath to protect and defend the inalienable right to life? Pro-life legislators and citizens could call for their removal from office for violating their oaths and citizens could circumvent pro-abortion governors and legislatures by placing personhood amendments on the ballot.

The bottom line is that if we are ever going to end abortion we must acknowledge the fact that the old strategy of "overturning Roe" (a virtual impossibility given the fact that Obama is likely to appoint at least 3 pro-abortion justices to the SC in the next 4 years) by electing more Republicans etc... has been a losing strategy. We must accept the reality that we have conceded a toxic liberal lie for the last 30-years-- that courts can make law and that Roe is the "supreme law of the land." We must acknowledge that Roe was an unconstitutional and lawless declaratory opinion which President Nixon and every governor and state legislature in every state should have rejected and ignored at the time. We pro-lifers must acknowledge that for too long we have failed to demand that our elected representatives uphold their constitutionally sworn oaths to protect and defend the inalienable right to life.

If we are going to end abortion in America, we must demand that our elected representatives merely uphold their constitutional oaths to protect and defend the inalienable right to life. No need to pass constitutional amendments. The right to life is already guaranteed in our Founding documents. It is time that those of us who believe that the right to life is unalienable hold our elected representatives accountable for violating their oaths instead of rewarding them with our time, money and votes.

Can you imagine if the leading pro-family and pro-life organizational leaders as well as the leading pro-life pundits and radio talkers all called for the president of the United States to issue an executive order to close down every abortion mill in the country? Can you imagine what could happen in this country if tens of millions of Americans realized that Roe is not and never has been actual law and that the right to life is already guaranteed in our Constitution and that all we have to do to end abortion is to demand that our elected representatives who work for us merely abide by their sworn oaths?

If we pro-lifers want to achieve total victory (i.e. ending abortion forever as opposed to the current strategy of merely regulating it), we must realize that we control our own destiny and the destiny of tens of millions of those not even yet conceived. If we fail to hold our own elected representatives accountable for upholding their sworn oaths to protect and defend the inalienable right to life we shouldn't complain about the culture of death many of us who call ourselves "pro-life" have been complicit in creating and sustaining.

Why continue to perpetuate a losing strategy instead of following the Constitutional guidelines our founders gave us?"

So what do you say Focus on the Family, Concerned Women of America, American Family Association, American Center for Law and Justice, Family Research Council, Alliance Defense Fund, National Right to Life, Priests for Life, American Right to Life, Jim Bopp, Tony Perkins, , Gary Bauer, Donald Wildmon, Mat Staver, Rick Scarborough, Jay Sekulow, Wendy Wright, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Glen Beck, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt and Sean Hannity?

If you believe that babies in the womb possess an unalienable right to life which no federal or state government may violate as guaranteed in our Declaration and Constitution, will you join me in calling for President Bush to issue an executive order to shut down every abortion clinic in America?

Or should we continue waiting for Roe to be "overturned" while 50 million more babies are killed in the process?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Gregg Jackson is a radio talk show host on WRKO in Boston and author of "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies: Issue By Issue Responses to the Most Common Claims of the Left from A to Z."

Be the first to read Gregg Jackson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Okay...
let's have a revolution!

Has it ever occured to anyone that abortion is a judgment on this land? It doesn't *bring* judgment, it *is* judgment. Proverbs says "all those who hate Me love death." This injustice (that abortion is accepted as legal) is a symptom of a wider problem in our society and it is a moral one, not a political one.

States' Rights Issue is MORE Pro-Life
And for some reason we want abortion to be a federal issue so we an pass federal law defending life? Why on earth do we think that will ever pass? The country and its legislators do not overwhelmingly identify themselves as pro-life in any sense of the word. What happens when we try to pass legislation and then fail?...

And what happens when the abortion lobbies then come forward and push for legislation that GUARANTEES the ability of women to have abortions. What would we do then? We'd come back and say "No wait... we want abortion to be a state issue..."

We can't have it both ways. Creating more federal power and allowing the government to have more control over abortion is the WORST possible thing we could do. Why do we assume the country is somehow this bastion of conservative moral character? 40 years ago would we have ever believed abortion on demand would be the norm, that homosexual marriage would be recognized by several states?

Things sure have changed a lot in just a brief time. Allowing the federal government into our lives and granting them more power over determining morals will only lead to a continued breakdown in morals. Everything the government turns to rot. Why do we think the defense of the unborn will be any different?

As per the Constitution, abortion is an issue which as of now is entitled to be determined by each individual state. Even better, making it a state issue is more pro-life than pushing for more failed government solutions from a movement which has as of the moment, failed every step of the way.

Always good to hear from you Gregg. Keep up the good work.




Abortion as a States' Rights Issue
Gregg,

While I agree on the philosophical need and responsibility of us to end this practice, I have to disagree strongly on some of the elements of procedure you mention.

You state that the Constitution guarantees the right to life for the unborn under the 5th and 14th amendments when it does not. As much as we want the Constitution to say something, as much as we may want to end abortion, the law stands firm and we can't bend it to say what we want it to. The 5th amendment applies to criminal prosecutions. "Person" as it was defined, did not extend to women, blacks, or natives. We can not therefore that it extended to the unborn, even as much as we may want it to.

The 14th amendment is actually completely invalid itself. As it was passed illegally, it should not even be on the books, much less have weight in a courtroom.

You state President Bush has a Constitutional oath to protect life, and thereby he should issue executive orders in the next month? Where is that in his oath?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The President's oath is (in theory) to defend the law, and uphold the Constitution, which again, as much as we may want it to, does not specifically state that it is the federal government's role to end abortion. Making executive orders and giving President Bush MORE power? Bad news all around.


State Issue
Gregg,

While I agree on the philosophical need and responsibility of us to end this practice, I have to disagree strongly on some of the elements of procedure you mention.

You state that the Constitution guarantees the right to life for the unborn under the 5th and 14th amendments when it does not. As much as we want the Constitution to say something, as much as we may want to end abortion, the law stands firm and we can't bend it to say what we want it to. The 5th amendment applies to criminal prosecutions. "Person" as it was defined, did not extend to women, blacks, or natives. We can not therefore that it extended to the unborn, even as much as we may want it to.

The 14th amendment is actually completely invalid itself. As it was passed illegally, it should not even be on the books, much less have weight in a courtroom.

You state President Bush has a Constitutional oath to protect life, and thereby he should issue executive orders in the next month? Where is that in his oath?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The President's oath is (in theory) to defend the law, and uphold the Constitution, which again, as much as we may want it to, does not specifically state that it is the federal government's role to end abortion. Making executive orders and giving President Bush MORE power? Bad news all around.

I have the same concern with President-elect Obama, however calling for his impeachment because he doesn't shut down Planned Parenthoods can't really be taken seriously. Presidents should be remove from office for violating law, not because they don't think the way we do... Even as heinous as the act of promoting abortion may be.


Continued

Each state does not want the federal government imposing its will on how the state defines murder in the cases of self-defense (there are 50 different state laws) or how it prosecutes its' criminals, (some states have the death penalty and some do not)

If abortion is murder, and if murder is a state issue, then the issue of abortion is a state issue. Again, whether we want it to be or not is not the case, we have an obligation to uphold law and the Constitution.

Second, making abortion a states rights issue is actually MORE pro-life. The reasons for this are endless. By making abortion a state issue, we can start saving lives TOMORROW. States like South Dakota, Texas, and Utah would outlaw the practice. Instead of waiting for federal legislation which has been "pending" for more than 30 years, lives would be saved instantly. Isn't the purpose of the pro-life movement to stop abortions? So Gregg, why would you be opposed to allowing the states to decide their law?

While pro-lifers push for law that will never take place, they deride those who want to follow the Constitution as not being truly pro-life. In reality, it is the constitutionalists who want to make abortion a state issue who are the real pro-life advocates. They refuse to sit back and be idle and wish for change, their counterparts have been doing for three decades.


Yes some of us constitutionalists
disagree. We believe abortion is a choice. The problem occurs when government forms laws then those laws are often stringent, not allowing freedom of choice or exceptions.

I do not care how carefully you word it. Someone will eventually come along to tighten it up some more.

I personally do not approve of abortion, but yet see where others may need the exception.

If your daughter was raped, would you still? The trauma might lead her to suicide? or mental? What have you gained? There are many more reasons for individual choice here.

They will answer to their creator.

The best is to pull the federal funds. That would bring it to nil right there. That is constitutional also, limited government. Of course as long as one believes in social government. It will never happend. They go hand in hand.

Stuff like this. . .
Is why so many people think conservatives are assholes. Or, at least, conservatives like Gregg Jackson. What next? Seizing the arsenal at Harpers Ferry?

CHARGE!!!
Andrea, I don't see the logic of your argument that abortion is judgment rather than that it brings judgment. I think that Obama is part of God's judgment on America for abortion; the liberal media is part of it; the apostasy of the church is part; our financial collapse is part; our abysmal educational system is part; widespread liberalism/socialism/communism is part; 9/11 and all subsequent Islamic attacks are part. There is no end to the multifaceted ramifications of murdering nearly fifty million innocent babies all across our land--4,000 per day. If God does not bring increasing severity of judgment on us as abortion continues here, then he will have to apologize to the Germans for what happened to them in WWII for murdering twelve to fifteen million people in concentration camps.

I like your idea, though, of starting revolutions state by state against abortion until the entire nation is set free from this abominable wickedness. States that outlaw abortion would be greatly blessed of God. Other states seeing their "good fortune" would be inclined to follow suit. All it takes is one state to lead the way. Texas, Louisiana or Alaska should take the point in this crusade without delay.

I have always maintained...
...that abortion was the slavery issue of the 20th century.Blacks were considered a little less human than the rest of society such as whites,orientals,and indians.Therefor they could be considered "chattel property"(Dred Scott decision).Chattel property is that property that could be moved,i.e.a horse,a cow,an automobile."Real property" is that property that cannot be moved,a farm,a home,etc.What the judges in the Dred Scott decision were protecting was the issue of slavery,so they HAD to define the African out of mankind by calling him "chattel property".

In "Roe vs Wade",the Supreme Court WANTED abortion to be legal,so they had to define a baby out of existence,by the means of "trimesters" etc.Calling them "fetuses","a pregnancy",etc.But it is all a non-scientific fiction.

"States rights".Excuse me,but "States" do NOT have the right to violate the Constitution.That argument ended in April, 1865,and it is not coming back.Live with it!The very idea of the states having the authority to violate the US Constitution is absurd!

If life doesn't begin at conception,then when does it begin? When the head is out of the womb?How about half a head? Maybe just a scalp?And while we are at it "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Look,a man born with just one leg doesn't look like me,but that DOESN'T mean he is less human.A "fetus" doesn't look like you and I,but that doesn't mean they are less human.Being human means they deserve to be protected by the Constitution,just like you and I.

Educate
How about this idea. Instead of wasting time and money trying to start a revolution against states or politicians, lets educate girls, women, and for that matter, also men about what an abortion looks like. Films about the procedure already exsist. Lets show the baby at every stage of development, and then at what point they are dismembered. I believe that this would change the hearts of 99% of all people, and planned parenthood would be out of business. Lets take this to our schools, this would be a good starting place.

Pro life
It took a Civil War to end slavery.What will it take to end the wholesale slaughter of innocents? Terrorist attacks? FinanciaL ruin? Socialist/Communist rule?


????
Who gave anyone the right to pass such a horrible sentence as ABORTION??What would happen if none of us were here? They r still humane.Dont they have a right to live life same as their parents??I cant see any mom doing this to her unborn child.SORRY.

PRO-Life
Why would anyone want to put this ACT into place anyway?

Bravo
I truly believe that given the Constitutional crisis in which we find ourselves, it is up to Governors to take the lead. The States are impotent and some Governor somewhere needs to grow a pair big enough to exercise State authority. (Please excuse the not so polite language.)

Great article, Mr. Jackson. Thank you.

Being Pro-Life in America
It is very sad how corrupt and evil our country and the politics are today. No wonder no one likes us. Our country once stood for the right to a life no matter who you were and where you were from.
The morals of our country have changed so much. It saddens me that I have to explain to my kids what an abortion is. This politcal year has hit my home very hard. The public schools having elections in school didn't help this matter at all. Who would you vote for if you could? I had to explain to my kids why we (my husband and I) were voting for John McCain. I told them because he was Pro-Life. Of course they asked what that meant. I never remember asking my parents who they were voting for and why. Kids aren't allowed to be kids anymore. My oldest son who is 11 was very sadden and couldn't understand how someone could kill a baby. Why?, he asked me. I honestly didn't know what to say.
It's funny how everyone like to pass the buck nowadays. I for one am very disappointed in our country and what it stands for lately. Everything is so screwed up. If you speak out against gay rights, abortion and GOD you are instantly ganged up on. I don't understand why people aren't be more vocal about these issues. We need to speak LOUDER and more frequent about these issues and stand up for what is right morally. I get alot of looks and not so nice comments about the size of my family. I am 30 years old and a proud mother of 7. I am looked at as if there was something wrong with me, not only by non-Christians, but people who are so called Christians. What is up with that? A women who is proud of being a mother doesn't say, "Oh! My husband and I are expecting a FETUS!" No they proudly and most excitely say, "We are expecting a BABY!!." Life is Life no matter how you look at it. It is now a legal issue with abortions and it is going to take alot of people standing up for what is right to change anything.

Gregg Jackson
is off his rocker. The abortion rate has declined over the last few years and it has declined because of incrementalism. And that is a fact. We should work on changing the culture and people's attitudes towards abortion as well as changing the law. Sending in the national guard? Give me a break! Gregg, go back to sleep.

Gregg is nuts.
Absolutely nuts if he thinks that the president should do this. Such an overreaching move would set us back another thirty years.

Change
Some changes are good: No more slavery. Women can vote. Everyone can go to school (not to equal schools yet). College is more available.

Some changes are not so good: I can't imagine my mother or the vast majority of her peers (she was born in 1923) thinking that it is reasonable to kill their own babies. This change, in my opinion, is the kind that will bring us down.

IS GW REALLY PRO-LIFE?

.....His mother and wife are both pro-choice ie: support abortion rights ...his father was pro-choice until he converted for political reasons ...GW had eight years, six with Republican majorities to do something and except for his Supreme court appointees, did little ...Maybe a Huckabee or a Palin could issue such an order but you will never see it from GW ...

.....As far as the Constitution goes, give me a break ...no Pol in DC pays any attention to the Constitution anymore ...we can't even get Obama to produce his original birth certificate to prove that he is eligible to be President .....COLOSSUS

Abortion
Call it whatever you want -- abortion is murder. There is life from the moment of conception. Go ahead and have an active sex life -- there are no consequences. In the event of an unwanted pregnancy -- there is a solution. Abortion. Our future president said that if one of his daughters found herself with an unwanted pregnancy he would not want her to be "punished with a baby." Only one of my three children was planned, the other two were not Punishment, but Blessings.

NATIONAL POLLS ON ROE VS WADE

.....Polls show that up to 70% of the Country does not want to see Roe overturned ...

.....While they might be pro-life personally, they do not want to make abortion illegal for others ....without the support of a majority of the voters, no President would issue such an executive order ...it would not be Politically Correct .....COLOSSUS

A little girls right to chose
Why is it looked at as so noble to protect an irresponsible behavior that ends the obviously ongoing life of what will eventually be a voting age little girl. I say little girl because most of the abortions are for girls who have been statutorily raped by their older boyfriends. If not chronologically aged as statutory rape but many times too immature to accept the responsibility to parent a child they are willing to kill to have sex with someone who they aren't ready to or even considered to commit to. Men are getting away with murder and little girls are being torn apart mentally by this ironically feminist right of independence. Planned parenthood won't even report statutory rape when it is reported to them, does someone have the statistics of how often abortions are for reported rapes? yet we always hear the cry what if it was a rape? well was your old man a bad guy? maybe you shouldn't have been allowed to live.

TH, please censor the word abortion

I am so sick and tired of all you single-issue, ding dongs. I wish TH would censor the word abortion, like they do some other words.

I am against all abortions unless the alternative is worse. If the female involved wants or needs an abortion for any reason, an abortion it shall be.

The way to stop abortion is for a lady who does not want a child, not to become pregnant, but you idiots never mention the other idiot involved.

I hope the idiot responsible for her problem gets castrated with pliers. But first there will be a short ceremony where it is determined that heads he get an anathestic, tails he doesn’t.

The only time a man (or I should say a male) should mention the word abortion is when the lady he impregnated wants one. The only time a female should mention the word abortion is when she wants one.

All the rest of you, SHUT UP.

Why don’t all of you have your own web site, so your Hate the Lady comments are not forced on others.

Mike
While you make a good point about "little girl", you have not been looking at who is having abortions. I recommend that you do some google searches. You'll find out that the vast majority are by consenting adults using abortion as a method of birth control. I personally can't imagine a change in our society that has caused more damage to our respect for life.

I like this idea
If only we had elected leaders who had the guts to do this. We could save the lives of thousands of people in our country evey year.

If we do ever get rid of infanticide in our country, we should also make it illegal for any US citizen to go to another country to have an abortion.

Incrementalism is working
Incrementalism is what is happening in more than half of the states. It means that the states have a right, even under Roe v. Wade, to say that women have to be given full information so that they can give informed consent to an abortion, that there has to be a 24-hour waiting period, that a minor's parents have to be notified before an abortion can be done, that in some states the minor's parents even have to give their consent before the abortion can take place.

As has been stated before, a woman wants an abortion like a wolf wants to gnaw off its leg to get out of a trap. When women really understand about abortion and its potential aftermath, when they know the different options available to help them, they tend not to choose the solution they did when they were desperate and thought that they were alone.

Each time that a state puts in a measure like those listed above, the abortion rate in the state goes down. Nationally, there were 1.5 million abortions in 1990 and it has been going down ever since then.

Incrementalism hasn't failed. It's working and it's the only sure way we have to eventually get rid of Roe v. Wade and allow states to protect their innocent unborn citizens.

Roe is the Law of the Land, Get Over It!
Why should a minority of Amercans (the pro-lifers) try to take away a right that the majority of Americans are in favor of? And Merk, wants to take the rights away of anyone going to another country for a medical procedure. You extremists are truly beyond the pale and the young women today who are used to freedom of choice will never allow you to repeal their right to their own reproductive choices. I'm the proud mother of three who never had an abortion, but I uphold the right of others to make their own decisions--that's the American way and it's the law.

Fact is, we don't care about this issue
If America was "pro-life" as you put it, there would be no abortions or death penalty.

Fact is, it was, is and always will be a personal choice. Like it or not. As a male, it is never a choice I have had to make and never will.

Ladies, if you don't believe in abortion for whatever reason, don't have one - that simple.

As to the Constitution, who has paid any attention to that lately? According to President Shrub, eh...Bush it os just a "God Damned piece of paper". We violate it every single day for "security", "entitlement", undeclared wars, you name it.

Fact is, nobody really cares. It is a nich issue.

Death Penalty

If you think the death penalty doesn’t work, next time the doctor prescribes medicine for a serious illness, don’t take it, just put it on a shelf. Occasionally look in the bottle, shake it once in a while, and after 15 years of suffering, take the medicine. Then you’ll say, “That medicine didn’t help.”

On February 15, 1933, a bricklayer, Giuseppe Zangara attempted to assassinate President-elect Roosevelt. He killed the mayor of Chicago, Anton J. Cermak, instead, and Zangara was executed a month later, March 20, 1933. The death penalty was swift and effective. Zangara never killed again!

Both medicine and the death penalty work best when used immediately, not 15 years after the fact.


How to prevent or stop abortions
The sex act was designed by whatever deity you believe in or force you acknowledge to conceive a child. If a couple doesn't want to have a child, then they should either use protection or don't have sex altogether. Abortion should be thought of as a double tragedy and crime, not only in that it takes a life, but even more so, it is 100% preventable. Let Bush issue an Executive Order outlawing abortion, but there is a better way to stop abortions. We need to think of sex in a different manner as the act that initiates human life, not a means to sell cars or cosmetics or something done without any consequences.

great article
lets get the ball rolling.

nothings is as powerfull as idea who's time has come.

IF YOU WANT TO GIVE IT A SHOT

.....EMAIL PRESIDENT@WHITEHOUSE.GOV ...

.....Maybe if he receives a million or so, he might think it over .....COLOSSUS

Gregg
Whatever your arguement, on any topic, loses as considerable amount of validity when your plan involves using the national guard to implement your ideas. While we are at it why don't we use the guard to control mevement of the populus by setting up road blocks throughout the country and implementing a national ID system, etc. I understand hyberpole for emphasis but deploying the national guard to shut down abortion clinics could create anarchy in America. With all the other problems we are currently facing do we really need that right now?

Wouldn't that be wonderful?
I would love to see Bush do that. For more pro-life opinion pieces I urge your readers to visit my daughter's page. She is a full time Pro-Life activist.
http://www.gingiedmonds.com

A crazy idea
Whatever else this last election was, it was certainly a setback for the anti-abortion (I don't like the weasel words "pro-life" OR "pro-choice") cause. As one who is more or less neutral on the issue, I wondered how the anti-abortion people would react to the defeat. In the case of Gregg Jackson, the answer seems to be: It's driven him completely nuts. He is seriously out of touch with reality (another "generally accepted definition of insanity") if he thinks Pres. Bush or any other elected politician is going to try to abolish abortion by executive fiat. Or that the American people, a majority of whom evidently want at least some abortions to remain legal, would stand for it. Or, for that matter, that such an executive order would actually "end abortion," any more than Prohibition ended drinking alcohol or our present drug laws have ended the use of drugs.


How wonderful

Mary Asatruar Location: NV
Reply # 30
Date: Dec 10, 2008 - 1:59 PM EST

We need to think of sex in a different manner as the act
===========
But Mary I can assure you that for nearly 55 years, that was the most wonderful, the most important reason to be alive. Nothing ever, for even a moment compares to my Sweetie and I loving.

Thank goodness it was invented, or at least provided for, by God’s creation of the universe.

Hooray

For once in my time on TH, no one has called me bad names because of my comment

"I am against all abortions unless the alternative is worse."

And please don't start now.

Lack of Courage
Neither Bush nor any of the conservative politicians has the courage to stand up for what is right. This is why we have leftist hegemony now. Bye bye Constitution-Hello Communism

Bravo!
Mr. Jackson,

I for one applaud you and your article. I myself have often wondered why we didn't simply resort to an executive order in the first place.

The left is rabidly pro-abortion, while there are some on the right who insist on "states' rights" but then asking, "Okay, now assume you're the governor of your state" suddenly become mum on what they would do as governor.

The right to life supercedes the importance of governmental legal bickering. Instead, we have continued to cooperate with the appointment of judges who have done nothing. You draw a parallel to slavery. This is more important than slavery, and slavery was an issue more important than states' rights and more important than the Constiution.

Yet even then, you are correct in citing the preamble, 5th, and 14th amendments as explicit places where a person cannot be denied life without the due process of law, and that the Constiution even exists to serve us and our posterity.

It is an irony that we can have the Constiution on our side and science back up our claims, yet we will be deemed to be the ones who are anti-science and anti-law. When our legal system has been so badly hijacked, and what passes as morally palatable are so badly out of alignment, I do agree that it is time for revolution, and that we should be employing any and all means we have at our disposal as an exercise in raw moral power. Babies' lives depend on it.

superceded murder trumps
Here we go again, yes, pro-life is right and abortion is wrong. There are a "few" exceptions most reasonable pro-lifers will agree upon: maniacal cloning because you have the money to create a million Obamas et al, known rapist murderers on rampage, not murdering the mother to save the child. These conditions trump the birth to save society and its direction. So, please save your breath, Gregg, with: the right to life is an unalienable right which neither the federal nor state government may violate. Sure, unless, other laws are in jeopardy. We have to safeguard the populace.

Religious Rite

Pagan Religious Rites are protected law.
See:First Amendment.

All these pagans will be replaced by the Mexicans as needed nature hates a vacum.

The only reason the Republicans don't like child sacrifice is because the less workers the higher the wages. Supply and demand

The Republicans figured out it's cheaper to bring in fully grown Mexicans it cost a lot to raise a cheap labor force up from birth.

America is changing so fast don't blink.




We can stop abortion without...
IMHO we can cut the abortion industry off at the knees and bankrupt the abortion industry if we start targeting the porn industry with equal fervor. No need to mess with Roe v. Wade. This society we live in today eats, sleeps and drinks sex. Porn and abortion are opposite sides of the same coin: lust. We need to stop buying smut. We need to boycott these big-screen peep shows. This would nip the problem before it ever becomes a problem.

Personhood Amendment
Yeah, Gregg...

It seems so logical to me! I agree with Andrea -- let's start a revolution! It took a civil war to end slavery, I expect it will take the same to end abortion. We have become a society of self-centered people that killing another has been deemed a "choice".

Excellent article, Gregg. Let's do both -- demand accountability from our elected officials while pursuing Personhood Amendments for the purpose of educating the masses.

Personhood Amendment
Yeah, Gregg...

It seems so logical to me! I agree with Andrea -- let's start a revolution! It took a civil war to end slavery, I expect it will take the same to end abortion. We have become a society of self-centered people that killing another has been deemed a "choice".

Excellent article, Gregg. Let's do both -- demand accountability from our elected officials while pursuing Personhood Amendments for the purpose of educating the masses.

PRESIDENT BUSH AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Gregg,

What is missing from your otherwise excellent article is the simple fact that in order to end abortion in America, we have to protect ALL innoncent human beings including those killed by the birth control pill and other such chemicals and devices, AND we have to protect the human embryos currently being killed in IVF labs and other such locations. While it would be nice to see all abortion mills shut down, that would still leave millions of preborn children at risk of death.

This is why personhood is the only logical strategy.

Oh yes, and Bush is not pro-life. After all under his watch Planned Parenthood's funding has increased annually.

Nice try though.

Judie Brown, President
American Life League Inc.
http://www.all.org

The Silence from the "pro-family"
and "pro-life" "conservative" organizational leaaders is DEAFENING.

Not one of the organizations or so called "pro-life" conservative leaders and pundits joined Mr. Jackson in calling for President Bush or ANY governor of any state to issue and executive order closing down abortion clinics.

Here again is Mr. Jackson's challenge to them that was totally ignored by those who claim to be "pro-life" and "pro-rule of law":

"So what do you say Focus on the Family, Concerned Women of America, American Family Association, American Center for Law and Justice, Family Research Council, Alliance Defense Fund, National Right to Life, Priests for Life, American Right to Life, Jim Bopp, Tony Perkins, , Gary Bauer, Donald Wildmon, Mat Staver, Rick Scarborough, Jay Sekulow, Wendy Wright, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Glen Beck, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt and Sean Hannity?

"If you believe that babies in the womb possess an unalienable right to life which no federal or state government may violate as guaranteed in our Declaration and Constitution, will you join me in calling for President Bush to issue an executive order to shut down every abortion clinic in America?



Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.