Tag Archive for Roe v. Wade

Michigan, Michigan Politics, Philosophy, State Convention

Oh Tonya!

by Jason • August 16, 2018 • 3 Comments

Tonya Schuitmaker pro Roe v Wade a disturbing development

An Attorney General can ‘decide’ not to defend the constitution.

A state AG can decide based on personal motivation to pursue (or not) just about anything that strikes their fancy. This is why it is important to understand the core beliefs of those whom we might elevate to such a position.

Imagine if the contentious Roe v. Wade were to be sent back to the states so that the state of Michigan could decide. Would the AG support the efforts to protect the sanctity of life; protect the unborn from the brutality of abortion on demand? Where would the AG’s conscience lay?

Those who support the Right to Life might be troubled by the following from Senate Journal 15 of 2017:

Elections, Michigan, Opinion, Philosophy

About That Roe v Wade

by Jim Fuscaldo • October 21, 2016 • 4 Comments

Clinton, Trump and Wallace Fumbled the Abortion Question/ Supreme Court Discussion

It appears both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and the media (Chris Wallace) know very little if anything about the legal parameters pertaining to the alleged “constitutional right” to an abortion.

This conclusion is based on the discussion pertaining to the candidates’ position on abortion set forth in last night’s debate. The same is true for the main stream media and their “puppet” hosts, authors and pundits who defend Planned Parenthood. In short they don’t know enough to know what they don’t know.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), ruled that an illusionary right to privacy existed under the “penumbra” of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. A decision that has been criticized by many constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle. This granted a limited right to a woman to have an abortion. Judge Blackmun held there is a broad right of privacy, although not explicitly set forth in the Constitution, that lurks in the “penumbras and shadows” of the Bill of Rights. This right of privacy allegedly grants women a right to have an abortion. Really? Contrary to popular belief, the Bill of Rights is not a positive grant of rights to the citizens, but a negative Bill of Limitations on what the Federal Government may not do, namely interfere with the rights retained by the states under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Philosophy

To Not Speak Is To Speak

by Kevin Rex Heine • February 3, 2014 • 2 Comments

Where was the pro-life party two weeks ago?

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer)

Both pro-life and pro-murder activists observed the 41st anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision just under two weeks ago, and most Christian churches observed Life Sunday on one of the weekends on either side of that event. Given that the sanctity and dignity of human life is its own three-paragraph line item in the 2012 Republican Platform (on page 20 and 21 of the downloadable PDF version), one would have thought that the Republican National Committee would have had something to say regarding National Sanctity of Human Life Day during their recent winter meeting in the District of Columbia, especially given that they made a point of setting aside 3-1/2 hours on Wednesday specifically for the March for Life. Given that Michigan has such a deep pro-life tradition that Governor Snyder’s veto of a pro-life bill was promptly overridden by citizen initiative, one would think that the Michigan Republican Party would have had something to say regarding the same annual event.

However, a review of both the RNC and MIGOP websites reveals that the only mention made is by RNC Deputy Communications Director Sarah Isgur Flores, and seems to be in the context of responding to the DNC’s perpetual war on women. Other than that, the silence is deafening. Which leaves us wondering, what could have been so important that it should have taken priority over speaking up to defend those among us who are most vulnerable and least capable of defending themselves?