So I saw my first "Anit- Roberts" commercial.

O. L. T. · 09-08-05, 03:59 PM

Pathetic. Who's seen it? Says "we can't trust our chief justice position to Roberts".

Uhg, people. Just pathetic.

O. L. T. · 09-08-05, 04:36 PM

paid for by "naral pro choice america"

Just saw it again,

Lil4X · 09-08-05, 11:34 PM

NARL and the abortion lobby is running scared that a pro-life majority on the court might tip over their little cash cow. "Morality" be hanged, overturning Roe v. Wade would shut down one of the most lucrative businesses in the nation, with 1,800,000 "procedures" performed this year. This will continue to be the desperate liberal's litmus test for nominees to the Court.

Look for more of this name-calling as the vote for confirmation in the Senate is completed and the next nominee to replace Justice O'Conner is submitted for approval. THAT's going to be a circus!

RobSoVIP · 09-09-05, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lil4X

NARL and the abortion lobby is running scared that a pro-life majority on the court might tip over their little cash cow. "Morality" be hanged, overturning Roe v. Wade would shut down one of the most lucrative businesses in the nation, with 1,800,000 "procedures" performed this year. This will continue to be the desperate liberal's litmus test for nominees to the Court.

Look for more of this name-calling as the vote for confirmation in the Senate is completed and the next nominee to replace Justice O'Conner is submitted for approval. THAT's going to be a circus!

I dont know if its an issue of money, or WOMENS rights... The whole lucrative business argument really doesn't hold much merit- this is not an issue of helping doctors, this is an issue of citizens rights.

O. L. T. · 09-09-05, 01:22 AM

If Regan were in office there would be a lot less stress between the two sides, and between groups in general. I'm not blind to the fact that in his terms there was still great stress, but Ronny had a way of making it all work. He'd shove a Justice in there and make it stick no matter what.

WhiteTiger · 09-09-05, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sc400texas

I dont know if its an issue of money, or WOMENS rights...

This women's rights thing is so overblown. Roe vs Wade will not be overturned in our lifetime no matter who the Justices are. These women's groups have taken the partial birth abortion issue (which is only a 3rd trimester issue) and has tried to make it like they are trying to take away all abortion rights. Including those in cases of incest, rape, or life of the mom. They try to read into each little statement made by anyone in order to attack anyone who wants to limit or restrict abortion.

I believe that in most cases, people have the right to an abortion under certain circumstances. Although, unless ABSOLUTELY necessary the partial birth procedure should NOT be used. If you can't make your decision during the 1st 2 trimesters, then you just need to have the kid and put them up for adoption. In addition, Federally Funded elective abortions should not be allowed, yeah sure, go have your abortion, but don't expect the taxpayers to pay for it! Hey you were the one who had unprotected sex, you can bear the responsibility and consequences that come with your own actions.

I haven't seen the commercial, but I'm sure this isn't the only time these liberal groups are going to use their smear tactics in an attempt to get what they want. Instead if people would focus on the facts and if Roberts is someone who has shown he will follow and rule based on the law rather than create it, then he should be confirmed.

I think too many are using memos that he was directed to write by others rather than understanding that what is in some (not all) of these memos are not necessarily his opinions, but the opinions of those who hired him to perform this work.

Inabj2 · 09-09-05, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O. L. T.

paid for by "naral pro choice america"

Just saw it again,

**** them.. thats all i have to say about them.. money is what they REALLY search but at what a cost?

QUOTE=sc400texas]I dont know if its an issue of money, or WOMENS rights... The whole lucrative business argument really doesn't hold much merit- this is not an issue of helping doctors, this is an issue of citizens rights.[/quote]
It is when it becomes a super lucrative bussiness.

Ever wonder if womans "rights" would be so fanatically held if the procedures cost them hundreds millions of dollars or maybe even billion, instead of proffiting hundreds millions of dollars or more?

mmarshall · 09-09-05, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lil4X

NARL and the abortion lobby is running scared that a pro-life majority on the court might tip over their little cash cow. "Morality" be hanged, overturning Roe v. Wade would shut down one of the most lucrative businesses in the nation, with 1,800,000 "procedures" performed this year. This will continue to be the desperate liberal's litmus test for nominees to the Court.

Look for more of this name-calling as the vote for confirmation in the Senate is completed and the next nominee to replace Justice O'Conner is submitted for approval. THAT's going to be a circus!

As usual, Lil4X is correct.

It's time to overturn Roe vs. Wade......Roberts or not. I am a great supporter of womens' rights, and of the belief that government, in most cases, should not intrude in women's personal lives. But Roe vs. Wade went WAY beyond that. It basically legalized the murder of another human being WITHIN that woman's body....especially in the later months of pregnancy. That, IMO, is NOT women's rights.
Let's face it.......occasionally the Supreme Court, even though I have the greatest respect for it, occasionally makes mistakes. In 1858 the Court upheld legalized slavery in the Southern states and said it was constitutional. It took a terrible civil war to overturn that decision and rid the country of slavery once and for all. Then, when the Southern states could no longer legally enslave black Americans, they found other ways of persecuting them....from segregation, Jim Crow laws, unequal job opportunities, the Ku Klux Klan, etc.....
The Supreme Court, in 1898's famous Plessy vs. Ferguson case, upheld the constitutionality of segregation and the "separate but equal" system...even though it WASN'T equal......ANOTHER big mistake by the Court. It took until 1954 ( Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education) to get THAT decision overturned, and even then there was massive resistance and violence in the South.
Now, instead of the persecution of black Americans, the Court has upheld the persecution of the unborn of ALL colors. Just like slavery and segregation, we will eventually get rid of this, too....the question is WHEN? Perhaps the biggest sign that Roe was a mistake is Jane Roe herself...the wonam who first brought the case in 1973. She now admits it was a major error...and is seeking to have it overturned.

http://www.epm.org/articles/roewade_truth.html

However, I also agree with White Tiger that it may not be in our lifetime. Look how long it took to get rid of legal segregation. Roberts alone will not be enough to do that. That would take at least two more Justices besides Roberts...and Bush, right now, can only choose one more. Ginsberg, Souter, and Stevens would probably vote to uphold Roe.......Kennedy is a question mark. But Stevens is 85 and will likely either retire soon or pass away in office like Rhenquist. Bush will then have an opportunity to appoint a third Justice...assuming those Justices DO vote to overturn Roe or get a chance to....which, of course, you never know.

I know I got a little long-winded here, folks.....sorry about that. So.....In a nutshell, I just see it as a matter of the rights of unborn bables and their right to live rather than as a issue of "women's" or "reproductive" rights, that' all.