Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

[A18]

The guy who wrote that article is amazingly clueless.

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban merely states that that specific act shall not be construed as to outlaw other forms of abortion. It does not in any way legalize other forms of abortion.

As for prosecuting abortion, there's this "little" thing called precedent. The lower courts will find any such convictions as incompatible with Roe, and overturn them.

[A18]

Someone on Peroutka's site now is saying if the Parental Notification Vote in California passes, it would say abortion is ok with a parents consent.

That's an interesting argument.  Ultimately, the more restrictions we as a pro-life movement are able to get passed, the harder it could theoretically become to get rid of abortion altogether.

If by "interesting," you mean "laughable," then yeah. Outlawing one thing does not mean everything else is legal.

This is not open to debate. A fourth grader could get this, and Peroutka is clearly a brain dead kook.

[A18]

Ah, but Emsworth, the court decision cited was an absurd mangling of the Constitution.

The decision (although unsound) was not too bad. After all, the court did not invent a new right in this case; the common law recognizes the right of any person to protect his health.

The problem is two-fold: (a) statutory law trumps common law, and (b) all a woman has to do is tell her doctor that having the kid would greatly upset her, and she gets off on a 'mental health' exception.

[A18]

It could be argued that anything is a privilege or immunity. But there's really no historic basis for saying any kind of abortion is protected by the Constitution.

What the Court was applying there was the 'undue burden test.' Now, I don't know if the undue burden test was applied properly or not, for I do not know what an 'undue burden' is. It could mean a million things in the abstract, and I'm afraid it has just come to be another tool for judicial law-making.

[A18]

The Ninth Amendment is a rule of construction concerning federal power. The Federalists argued a bill of rights would be dangerous, because by listing various exceptions to powers not granted, you would imply the government had those powers. In other words, you would make the powers seem far more expansive than they actually were.

The Ninth Amendment was simply a response to that.

James Madison, introducing the bill of rights and explaining the ninth amendment:

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

It is clear from the amendment's history and text that it is but a rule of construction, preventing the Bill of Rights from being taken by implication to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated.

Of course, the Ninth Amendment does not apply to the states anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I notice liberals like to use the word "clearly" to mask the fact that they have no clue what they're talking about. Even most Supreme Court justices admit Roe is a bunk ruling, that they only vote to uphold under stare decisis.

[A18]

I just explained the actual meaning of the Ninth Amendment. Do you have a counterargument, or do you just want to cite irrelevant facts, such one justice's "interpretation" of the amendment (which no one on the current court accepts), or English common law (which is inferior to statute)?

[A18]

Another non-argument. Though I suppose it is more intelligent than most of your actual arguments.