Two Virginia GOP Congressmen vote with Dems to kick the fiscal can down the road

I think his point is that a fertilized egg is not the same thing as a baby so it is not murder, all government money to Planned Parenthood goes to non-abortion activities (though that limitation really shouldn’t be in place), and the Republicans didn’t really offer anything better than the Iran deal besides saying vaguely “we should make it better” without giving explanation how. Failing that, the Republicans would just let the cold war with Iran continue, doing nothing until they finally get around to developing a nuke.

REPOST ALERT – On my admittedly at times seemlingly futile quest to help educate people on what the Supreme Court is and what it isn’t under our constitution I will repost a comment provided to an equally confused gentleman over two months ago here at TBE for your edification and hopefully education on the issue. I apologize to other commenters for the redundancy.

I’m not sure he ( in this case you) has a clear grasp on the Constitution and the role the judicial system, including the Supreme Court plays within it’s structure and the people’s legislative process. Unfortunately not an uncommon circumstance today among many individuals who mistakenly believe the Supreme Court is some form of final arbitrator or voice on decisions regarding federal legislation. Just NOT true the court’s role is to provide “review” and as Roe vs Wade is Federal law Congress can amend, replace, correct deficiencies or outright repeal it at will. This has occurred many, many times to federal legislation in the past history of the Republic. We could do away with this barbaric practice in a single piece of voted legislation if not for the mainly Democratic pro abortion members of the US Congress and their elected Republican enablers. Nothing is etched in stone here.

Comment addendum: In fact the current reality is if any future administration chooses to follow the Obama established precedents a simple executive order could very well suffice to override current abortion practices. That this is “settled law, end of story'” is complete and utter nonsense and frankly demonstrates you don’t have even a rudimentary grasp on how our federal republic system even works.

I disagree completely, actually the court has reversed and modified it’s opinions on several occasions over the years in many areas on this issue EXCLUDING the single point of privacy and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, which actually has nothing to do with the actual act of abortion itself.

The Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion in assocciation with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to “privacy” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman’s DECISION to have an abortion, BUT that this right must be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women’s health and protecting the potentiality of human life (a clarification generally ignored by the pro abortion lobby and supporters).

The argument that the state’s interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy. The Court later in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey rejected Roe‍ ’​s trimester framework, while affirming Roe‍ ’​s central holding that a person has a right to abortion (based on the original 1973 privacy agrument and the 14th Amendment) until viability. The Roe decision defined “viable” as being “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid”.

REGULATIONS which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State . . . may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman’s exercise of the right to choose.” Thus, unless an undue burden is imposed, states may adopt measures “designed to persuade [a woman] to choose childbirth over abortion.”

I am in fundemental disaggrement that any final determination has been presented on the issue of right to “privacy” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and the structural mechanism by which the State under our federal system may express profound respect for the life and protection of the unborn. The rulings post 1973 have never revisited this extrapolition of choice of termination of life to actual Fourteenth Admendent text nor visited the issue of choice as it related to inflicting egregious and deadly harm to others. All subsquent post 1973 rulings on Roe and Wade have been purported context clarifications and working around the edges. Where you see wrongness I see clear and readily available openings to redress an inappriotely applied interpertation of the Fourtheen Admendement. Regardless NONE of this precludes the state’s legislative function from passing legal statutes that may express profound respect and protection for the life of the unborn which are permitted within the context of Roe vs Wade.

If Congress passed a statute merely declaring that it disagrees with the Court on the interpretation of Roe vs Wade, the Court’s interpretation presumably will continue to be binding, at least as a matter of domestic law as applied by U.S. courts. So under this scenario I agree with your point, change would be difficult to impossible. That is not an approach to be taken except for political theater. However, Congress can pass ANY statute restricting ANY abortion related ruling that Roe vs. Wade currently enables and by doing so such a “later-enacted statute” would supersede the authority of the latter at least for purposes of domestic law (just as a later-enacted statute trumps an earlier one when the two irreconcilably conflict).

Its really as simply as that. The law would be immediately revised and enacted. Would it likely be brought back before the Supreme Court at the behest of the pro-abortion forces, yes without doubt, but the arguments and science of 2015, regarding the inception of human life, have changed considerably since 1973 and the “choice” argument vs. the state’s obligation to protect human life under the Fourteenth Amendment would be a much tougher rationalization to bind your argument to today in my opinion (recall this question has never been revisited). Regardless of all the political hand wringing to actually do something is a trivial legislative excercise, what is lacking is the guts and the humanity to carry it out.

“The Lord gives women the right to choose.” Heinous, Jim. That’s a truly outrageous thing to say.

Not all women

This is what is known as the fallacy of the false choice. Of course all women (and men) have the “choice” to be good or to do evil. But, in a civilized society, government constrains those choices by making certain patently evil choices unlawful. For instance, while a person can “choose” to commit murder, that does not mean it is their right to carry that choice to fruition.

[Apologies to all other readers for whom the foregoing text is entirely obvious, but RR needed it spelled out.]

Only the women afforded the chance to be born may execute a choice.

As an aside, I note that “settled law” is always raised when it comes to abortion, but when it comes to responsible gun ownership the Left continues to fight “settled law” and chip away at a right that was explicitly given to us in the Constitution.

Which women?