My brother, who is a criminal defense lawyer, and I were discussing the RVW decision .. he made a few good points I hadn't thought of..
He read the decision and believesv the Supreme court didn't go far enough, in his opinion.
One undeniable constitutional right is the "Right to Life." When the state deprives someone of their life ( capital punishment) it can only do so with due process. So from a legal standpoint, the "right to life"of an unborn child is denied unless due process is somehow involved. that assumes the child is "alive"
It follows that the question of " when life begins " must be determined by the state, as it stands. (if Abortion is to be considered "legal"., the taking of a human life without due process is illegal)
And since the USSC and Congress have not offered an opinion on that matter, the door is now open for future legislation rising to that same Court and body at the federal level, as done in the past on such issues where "states rights" cannot be interpreted to be radically different.. an example is the federal Act which regulates child custody and support (UCCJA).
UCCJA recognizes the rights of FATHERS and mothers. It follows that if a woman wanted an abortion, if Tge child were deemed to be living both parties would need consent, and that under circumstances adjudicated by other laws (due process)
So The ball is back in your court. If you want tokill babies, libz, you need need to tell us all "when life Begins" and convince Congress to pass the laws required.
Disgusting RINO!
|
