Tag Archives: abortion

Roe vs. Wade Overturned

Roe vs. Wade
Roe vs. Wade

Today, Roe vs. Wade was overturned.

I am not certain where I picked up on this, but for years I have argued for exactly what happened today

The Constitution was also expanded in the 1960s with Griswold v. Connecticut. The activist SCOTUS stated the right of privacy was implied in the Constitution, even though it was never stated. Because of that, in the 1970s, Roe v. Wade was decided. The issue in Roe was that the decision for an abortion was protected as a private matter between a patient and her doctor.

Most folks would argue that what goes on between a doctor and a patient is indeed a private matter. My issue with the decision is that this is not a matter for the feds to govern. Because privacy is not a right for which the feds should have purview, it should not have decided Roe. Perhaps that puts me on the fringe with some folks, but it certainly does not put me in a position of demanding that the federal government regulate what happens in the bedroom or at the doctor’s office. This is a matter for the states, much like gay marriage and other social issues.

New Jersey is liberal. If it (not the federal government) decides that it wants to permit abortions, gay marriage, homosexuality, etc., have at it. While I may not favor such decisions, I recognize that it is the right of the state to determine those things. If the people want it, then it can be had.

Abortion has not been outlawed. Rather, the people won! The people now get to decide the issue for themselves. That is how it is supposed to work.

Why do many folks leave New York and New Jersey to retire in Florida, Arizona, and South Carolina? The tax laws are advantageous to do so. Want marijuana? You’re not getting it in all states, so you travel to those who offer it. States compete on many levels, taxes and pot being among them.

Abortion will be another. Some states will assuredly prohibit abortion. Others will assuredly permit abortion.

Sure, some will argue that a woman who desires an abortion who lives in a restrictive state is treated differently than a woman in a permissive state. Yes. Likewise, a taxpayer in New Jersey is taxed far more than one in Florida. It’s the way it is.

This is by design. The United States Constitution works this way. It’s a beautiful document.

I will be taxed to fund abortions in New Jersey, most likely. That is against my desire. I deal with it. And when it becomes too much for me, I will be heading to another state . . . perhaps Florida. 😉

When Push Comes to Shove

Shaking in the bedroom, covers on your head,
Are you still in fear of the hand beneath the bed?
Grabbing at the handle, scratching at the door,
Maybe it’s mystery killer you saw on channel four.
When push comes to shove, you’re afraid of love.

Robert Hunter, When Push Comes to Shove

One of the issues I have with abortion is the fact that ultimately, the man is rendered moot in the discussion. A man and a woman have sex. A baby is conceived. When the woman is granted all “rights” over the decision of whether to deliver the child, it means the man has none. I find that problematic.

The same thing happened in my marriage. Regardless of my wants/desires, I was aborted because the woman in the relationship decided it was so. I had no say. I had no rights. The woman made the decision and I had to follow.

My children removed from me. My puppies removed from me. My sense of home removed from me. Shoot, I can’t even smoke brisket anymore because she made a decision. And I had no say whatsoever.

H.R. 1179

Dear Mr. Owens:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your support for H.R. 1179, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011. I appreciate hearing from you.

Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) introduced H.R.1179 on March 17, 2011. This legislation would amend President Obama’s health care reform law – the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) – to ensure the protection of the religious principles of millions of Americans. Specifically, H.R. 1179 would permit a health plan to decline coverage of specific items and services that are contrary to the religious beliefs of the sponsor of the plan without suffering legal consequences.

You may be pleased to know that I have become a cosponsor of H.R. 1179. While I and other Members of Congress continue our efforts to repeal President Obama’s health care reform law in its entirety, bills such as H.R. 1179 are necessary while PPACA is still law to ensure that the federal government does not force any American citizen to violate their religious principles.

H.R. 1179 has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee for further consideration. While I am not a member of this committee, be assured I support this legislation and will vote for it should this legislation come before the full House of Representatives for a vote.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future. I invite you to visit my website at www.house.gov/lobiondo for further information or to express your opinions on issues that are important to you.

Sincerely,
Frank A. LoBiondo
Member of Congress

Jane Roe

Interesting . . .

It’s not that I disagree with Ms. McCorvey, it’s that the issue is not just the moral issue she speaks about here. The true issue for all Americans is that SCOTUS overstepped its purview in deciding the case. Morality notwithstanding, legally, abortion is an issue for the states. An activist Court found an implied right to privacy in Griswald. That is not what the Constitution stated. As such, the feds should not be involved.

It would be interesting to hear from Ms. McCorvey’s second child on this issue.

The Constitution Explained

Devil’s Advocate produced a video that explains the Constitution and the role of SCOTUS in relation to it. He correctly presents what would happen in Roe v. Wade were to be overturned. FWIW, states would enact laws to either permit or outlaw the practice. It would be up to each state. Certainly, New Jersey would be among the first to pass abortion legislation. While I would be against that, it is how the system is supposed to work.

Anyhow, enjoy the lesson.

Obama’s Abortion Agenda

President Obama’s abortion agenda took a step forward with his announcement of Kathleen Sebelius as his latest HHS nominee.  She’ll pass the Senate’s test.  Unfortunately, she does not pass the Pope’s.  Sebelius claims to be a Catholic, yet she openly supports abortion.  More so, she has run interference for Dr. Tiller, who is performing partial-birth abortions.  He’s going to trial in a couple weeks for his actions.  She even vetoed a bill once that would have required doctors who perform partial-birth abortions to write a reason for performing the procedure.

This is no Catholic.  The archbishop of her diocese has informed her not to present herself for communion.  After the smackdown Pope Benedict gave Pelosi a few weeks ago, I would love to see Sebelius ex-communicated.