1 - 10 Next
I have a question for everyone who thinks that states passing personhood legislation to challenge Roe v. Wade is a great strategy for the pro-life movement. Personhood legislation has failed in every state in which it has been introduced. It failed on the ballot twice by a 70%-30% margin in Colorado, It failed on the ballot by a margin of 58%-42% in Mississippi, (reputed to be "the most pro-life state in the nation). It has failed, or has been detained or derailed, depending on how you want to define it, in the legislatures of LA, SC, VA, ND, OK, and I believe there are other states in which "personhood" has stumbled. If this is such a great idea, why are pro-life states not jumping at the chance to pass it to challenge Roe v. Wade?
What would "make sense" is to use those resources to rally people against the "full-throated supporter of baby-killing" to make sure that he is not the one appointing Supreme Court justices for the next 4 years. You stated that you would prefer Romney over Obama to pick judges. We agree wholeheartedly on that. Let's (the pro-life community) work together to make sure that Obama doesn't get that opportunity.
You are correct. Personhood legislation creates many unintended consequences in many other areas of law. An outright ban would not. That will not be possible until the votes are there on the SCOTUS. Defeating Obama is where pro-life people should be focusing their time and energy.
Santorum will not be making SCOTUS appointments in the next 4 years. Obama or Romney will. You didn't answer the questions in my post.
You are missing the relevant point. Why would Personhood USA spend hundreds of thousands to attack Romney? Why would they not spend that money attacking pro-abortionist Obama? Can you explain that? If you are pro-life, who would you prefer in the White House making SCOTUS appointments? Romney, or Obama?
Do you understand that the votes are not there on the SCOTUS at the present time to overturn Roe v. Wade?
"The truth" is that the current SCOTUS will not vote to overturn Roe no matter what great argument is thrown at them. If you don't accept that as being true, then you will not accept that it is bad strategy to try. If you try to overturn Roe and fail, the further truth is that you have done far more harm than good for the pro-life movement by reaffirming Roe. Courts place heavy emphasis on precedent, especially if there are multiple layers of case law which all reach the same decision. Now that is an undeniable truth.
Folks, the debate is not about when life begins. The debate is about what is the best legal strategy to prevent as many abortions as possible. Until the SCOTUS is ready to vote 5-4 to overturn Roe, ramming personhood legislation at them is an exercise in futility at best, and at worst, would only serve to reaffirm Roe, making it that much more difficult to overturn in the future if and when the votes are there. That is why the personhood strategy makes no sense and makes it suspect as to the real motives behind it. If the votes were there, personhood would be a good strategy.
What you just stated about slander is exactly the point of Rachel's article and your comment is spot on.
Many who are commenting are missing the point. The bottom line is that the votes are not there at the present time on the SCOTUS to overturn Roe. Until the votes are there, personhood legislation is bad strategy.
1 - 10 Next