National Sanctity of Human Life Day
Posted on January 22, 2006
Hat tip: Michelle Malkin
The text of President Bush’s proclamation can be found here.
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America
Our Nation was founded on the belief that every human being has rights, dignity, and value. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, we underscore our commitment to building a culture of life where all individuals are welcomed in life and protected in law.America is making great strides in our efforts to protect human life. One of my first actions as President was to sign an order banning the use of taxpayer money on programs that promote abortion overseas. Over the past 5 years, I also have been proud to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and a ban on partial-birth abortion. In addition, my Administration continues to fund abstinence and adoption programs and numerous faith-based and community initiatives that support these efforts.
When we seek to advance science and improve our lives, we must always preserve human dignity and remember that human life is a gift from our Creator. We must not sanction the creation of life only to destroy it. America must pursue the tremendous possibilities of medicine and research and at the same time remain an ethical and compassionate society.
National Sanctity of Human Life Day is an opportunity to strengthen our resolve in creating a society where every life has meaning and our most vulnerable members are protected and defended including unborn children, the sick and dying, and persons with disabilities and birth defects. This is an ideal that appeals to the noblest and most generous instincts within us, and this is the America we will achieve by working together.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Sunday, January 22, 2006, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to reaffirm our commitment to respecting and defending the life and dignity of every human being.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth.
GEORGE W. BUSH
The left are quick to respond, noting that it happens to also be the anniversary of Roe v Wade. They go on to claim hypocrisy by attempting to compare war casualities to the killing of the unborn.
Meanwhile, the LA Times has an article pointing out how many States are proposing abortion bans in hope of forcing a soon to be more conservative Supreme Court to revisit Roe vs. Wade. They suggest that the confirmation of Alito will create a majority to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Patterico points out how misleading this is.
By suggesting that abortion opponents’ “goal” is to force the Court to revisit Roe once Alito is appointed, the story falsely suggests that Alito will provide the crucial fifth vote to overturn Roe. After all, abortion opponents have no desire to mount a direct challenge to Roe while they still have only four votes on their side.
But the fact is that Alito will be, at most, a fourth vote against Roe. Abortion opponents don’t want to challenge Roe now. They are starting a years-long process of bringing cases to the Court, and are hoping that a liberal Justice will have been replaced by the time these cases arrive on the Court’s doorstep. Their goal is to have the Supreme Court revisit Roe once a third new Justice is appointed — not a “second” new justice.
The NY Times chimes in, noting that it isn’t just anti-abortionists that want to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
It’s unlikely that Congress would pass a comprehensive federal ban on or right to abortion. So in the absence of Roe, states would largely be free to regulate the issue as they saw fit. Some states would permit abortion on demand, while some would ban it; many would fall somewhere in between. A patchwork of state abortion regulations, however, will lead not to compromise, but chaos.
James Joyner of Outside the Beltway agrees that it would cause some chaos, but that it should still be over turned.
Yes, there are states where conservative Christians are such an overwhelming majority that almost no abortions would be legal were it up to their state legislatures and perhaps two or three states where women would be free to abort their baby at the last minute just because they felt like it. But, even left to their own devices, almost all states would have essentially the same abortion rules that they have now.
If Baude is right that the issue would ultimately be decided by Congress–and I believe he is–the handful of outliers would be washed away in the give-and-take of the legislative process. We would wind up pretty much where we are now.
Why, then, would the acrimony be gone? Because the outcome of the game is sometimes less important than the sense that it was conducted fairly. Participants in a democracy are used to not getting their way. When we lose, we get over it pretty quickly so long as we think it we were outvoted fair and square. Pro-lifers are so angry right now because they feel that the referees have stolen the game from them with a bad call.
While I agree that the correct approach would be to solve this through the political process, rather than judicial fiat, I don’t agree that it would end any kind of bitterness. If Roe vs. Wade were to be overturned, the screaming from groups like the ACLU and NOW about coat hangers would only get louder, and the whining democrats that adopt their talking points from these special interest groups would amplify right along with it.
As a matter of fact, the fear of Alito, already has them in a tizzy. Via ACLU: Critical Times: On the 33rd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade
These are critical times for reproductive freedom. In the weeks leading up to this year’s 33rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, the nation witnessed Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. sidestepping many important questions about his view of the Constitution and reproductive rights. In three days of questioning on these and other civil liberties issues during his confirmation hearings, Alito left us unsettled as to the fate of settled law.
Should he be confirmed, Judge Alito will replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate voice and a critical swing vote on many civil liberties issues, including a woman’s right to a safe and legal abortion. In several important cases, O’Connor has provided the crucial fifth vote upholding the right to abortion and recognizing the importance of protecting women’s health. In 1992, at a moment when Roe itself was in jeopardy, she broke with then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist and other abortion opponents in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, affirming a woman’s right to abortion. Notably the majority opinion in Casey, which O’Connor helped craft, strikes down a requirement that married women notify their husbands before obtaining an abortion, the very same requirement that Judge Alito had voted to uphold as a member of the lower court reviewing the law.
» Filed Under ACLU, Abortion, News
Trackback URL
Comments
9 Responses to “National Sanctity of Human Life Day”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
However much I disagree with Roe v. Wade and abortion in general… I see it as settled law. I don’t see abortion being illegal in this country anytime soon.
While I respect another person’s right to express their opinion, I will never believe that a religous majority should have the right to dictate governmental policy over minority factions, factions that may inclue an atheistic minority.
If the religious majority is sucessful in subjecting the minority, then the outcome is similar to Stalin imposing his will on those who would dare to defy him. Different substance but the same form.
What’s next? Do you plan to purge us? Please let us know, cuz as pagans, as ironic as it sounds, we are also strong believers in the second amendment (an believers in ballistic co-efficients as well).
Truly sincerely.
“I don’t see abortion being illegal in this country anytime soon.”
I agree. As much as I’d like him too, people are dreaming that the Supreme Court will just go in and wipe out abortion.
“If the religious majority is sucessful in subjecting the minority, then the outcome is similar to Stalin imposing his will on those who would dare to defy him. Different substance but the same form”
Its not the religious majority, its just the majority. That is a scare tactic. You put “religious” out front and it makes people uncomfortable. It has nothing to do with majority on this one, it has to do with bad law. Abortion is not covered under the 2nd amendment, or any other. Conservatives understand that one cannot prove that a fetus is a human, and one cannot prove that a fetus is not. Since that is the case, it is better for law to er on the side of caution.
“What’s next? Do you plan to purge us?”
Same old garbage. No one is talking about eliminating the rights of the minority. But you can’t reject the rights of the majority for the sake of the minority. Liberals need to understand that. This is not freedom of religion either. Abortion is bad law under our Constitution. Period.
“I don’t see abortion being illegal in this country anytime soon.”
Neither do I.
The Dems are trying hard to instill the fear that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned, a desperate ploy to try and keep Alito out.
This is what I find hilarious about the left. Take the two issues of abortion and social security. On one hand, they tell us that we are too stupid and irresponsible to save our own money. We need the governments’ “help.” We are way to dumb to understand the complexities of the stock market, or the investment procedure. Got it? But we are at the same time so responsible and infinitely wise that we can make life and death decisions over life of an unborn child. So we can’t be trusted with money, but we can be trusted with unborn children.
This is rich! I went to the link of the liberal blog. After reading the comments I made my own. Well apparently I’m a racist because I blamed Nagin for the mess after Katrina.
“Well apparently I’m a racist because I blamed Nagin for the mess after Katrina.”
How does that work out?
What Mr. Ivy does not understand is that the majority rules. We all have rights, priviledges, and responsibilities. They are all protected and punished. If Mr. Ivy and the minority want a greater say in the process they should do the most important single thing they can to promulgate their ideology- win enough elections to become a majority.
Point two; your rights are respected by the majority. You are just angered that you are not taken seriously by the majority and your rights are not good public policy. If your rights were not respected, you would be in prison or worse.
You have the right to bloviate, deviate, or meditate. You don’t have the votes. Too bad. You lose.
“What Mr. Ivy does not understand is that the majority rules”
True enough. The only way anything gets done in this country is through a majority of some type. For something to become law, it is voted on in Congress, decided by a majority. To interpret the law, the Supreme Court decides by a majority. We don’t let the bill with the least amount of votes, or the ruling with the least amount of votes win the day. The left is just upset that we still, and will have for some time, the majority. Even with a supposed lack of support for Bush, Dems still can’t get up in the polls. America is through with them.