Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Just a Quickie

On Michael Medved's radio show yesterday, I heard Senator Barbara Boxer say that she didn't care if some one who was pro-life was appointed to the Supreme Court, as long as they didn't "impose their personal views on the rest of us". She was, of course, talking about Roe v. Wade.

Well, first of all, that was a bald-faced lie. If you believe that Brabra Boxer really doesn't care if a pro-lifer gets appointed to the Supreme Court, please e-mail me. I have some investment opportunities for you.

And when the Left says that they don't want Conservative views "imposed on the rest of us", what they mean is that they don't want the government to do anything that Karl Marx would disagree with.

The bigger point, however, is: what the hell does she think that Roe v. Wade was if not the Leftist Supreme Court of the 1970's imposing their personal view on the rest of us?

If the Supreme Court were to get rid of Roe v. Wade, it would be doing nothing more than restoring the Constitution, at least in this case, to its original intention, which would be to turn the decision of abortion over to the states.

Contrary to what the Left always neglects to mention, abortion wasn't illegal in this country before Roe v. Wade. I honestly believe that there are hoards of liberal in this country who don't know that. It was up to the states to decide whether they would make it legal or not. And all of those blue states that the Left is so proud of would keep it legal.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, all it would mean is that someone would have to drive for a few hours to get to a state that would give them an abortion. God forbid that we should inconvenience anyone who wants to vacuum a baby out of her womb! I'm kinda thinkin' that the baby may find it inconvenient, too. If it could speak it would probably say, "It's my body!" right before it was torn to pieces.

I don't care how you read the 4th amendment. There is no possible way to read it and find a right to abortion in it. There isn't even a "right to privacy" in it! Which is how the court, somehow, made legalized abortion a Federal right.

If that isn't "imposing their personal views on the rest of us", what is?


  1. You really think Boxer was telling a lie??


    Were her lips moving??


  2. Well said. I don't believe Boxer for a second. Roe v. Wade was judicial activism no matter how you look at it.

  3. I wonder how the principled Ms. Boxer would react to recent news stories about abortions being "botched" in England resulting births.

  4. R v Wade was based on a lie by Norma McCovey,(who is now ardently pro-life) and as such, is an invalid law, which means it simply isn't law.

    Based on this fact alone, it can easily be overturned.

    But the baby killers never let facts get in the way of an argument.

    Boxer is certifiable, and needs restraints.

    Merry Christmas!