Comments on: Fight the FOCA http://jacquedixon.com/?p=1860 A Torah-Keeping, home schooling, homesteading, organic, family of eleven in Costa Rica, on our way to the Land. I'm the Mom. Sun, 05 Sep 2010 04:33:09 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Homeschooling6 http://jacquedixon.com/?p=1860#comment-3115 Homeschooling6 Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:02:14 +0000 http://jacquedixon.com/?p=1860#comment-3115 Thanks for the information. Linda< Thanks for the information.
Linda<

]]> By: Jacque http://jacquedixon.com/?p=1860#comment-3085 Jacque Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:16:38 +0000 http://jacquedixon.com/?p=1860#comment-3085 Thanks Sherry! You're welcome Lena. I am glad we can use our little blogs to spread the word about something so important!! ;D blessings, Jacque Thanks Sherry!
You’re welcome Lena.
I am glad we can use our little blogs to spread the word about something so important!!
;D
blessings,
Jacque

]]> By: Lena Baron http://jacquedixon.com/?p=1860#comment-3083 Lena Baron Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:58:01 +0000 http://jacquedixon.com/?p=1860#comment-3083 Thanks Jacque! I wrote a post on my blog and also spread it through my Facebook networks. And signed it of course! Thanks!!! <abbr><em>Lena Barons last blog post..<a href="http://llbaronfamily.blogspot.com/2008/11/freedom-of-choice-act-fight-it.html" rel="nofollow">The Freedom of Choice Act - Fight It!</a></abbr></em> Thanks Jacque! I wrote a post on my blog and also spread it through my Facebook networks. And signed it of course! Thanks!!!

Lena Barons last blog post..The Freedom of Choice Act – Fight It!

]]> By: Phillip http://jacquedixon.com/?p=1860#comment-3082 Phillip Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:45:34 +0000 http://jacquedixon.com/?p=1860#comment-3082 The FOCA has been sitting, essentially dead, since 4/07 for the Senate version of the bill and since 5/07 for the House version. On those dates they were referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties (House version) and to the Committee on the Judiciary (Senate). Now, I'm against abortion in most instances (except whereupon not having it done places the mother in grievous harm); I do respect the choice of women to have it done. I've had to deal with the ramifications from friends having it done. They've regretted it, but they made the choice. The summary is of the bill is stated that it is "To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes." Further, the Court found with Roe v. Wade that in cases where the fetus is viable, the state may ban abortions given the exclusion that in cases in which the bearer is at risk, she can have an abortion. If local/state governments wrote laws taking into account the ruling there would be no problem. Yet, states often write the laws to challenge Roe v. Wade, which, if you know how the Court operates, precludes the Court from hearing the arguments and thus denying the claim UNLESS some other thing is mentioned. Also, the Court has found that as time goes on, the age of the fetus, in which it is viable, has decreased as medical technology has increased and thus has upheld Roe v. Wade. Wherein (I believe) it was stated that anything after 7/8 months was considered viable (my memory is a bit rusty as it's been a couple years since I've had to study the case) and at the time that I read the decision it was at least a month lower and possibly more. My inclination would be that this, as you have presented, would be declared unlawful by the Court since they really do like to rely on the doctrine of stare decisis. They won't overturn themselves, they've only done this a handful of times, one of the times was when they ruled segregation illegal after ruling many years before that it was. But, as the text of the bill ACTUALLY says, I believe that it would stand a challenge. And, of course, no argument is made valid without links. So, included are the ones to THOMAS with the text of the bills. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1964: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1173: The FOCA has been sitting, essentially dead, since 4/07 for the Senate version of the bill and since 5/07 for the House version. On those dates they were referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties (House version) and to the Committee on the Judiciary (Senate).

Now, I’m against abortion in most instances (except whereupon not having it done places the mother in grievous harm); I do respect the choice of women to have it done. I’ve had to deal with the ramifications from friends having it done. They’ve regretted it, but they made the choice.

The summary is of the bill is stated that it is “To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.”

Further, the Court found with Roe v. Wade that in cases where the fetus is viable, the state may ban abortions given the exclusion that in cases in which the bearer is at risk, she can have an abortion. If local/state governments wrote laws taking into account the ruling there would be no problem. Yet, states often write the laws to challenge Roe v. Wade, which, if you know how the Court operates, precludes the Court from hearing the arguments and thus denying the claim UNLESS some other thing is mentioned.

Also, the Court has found that as time goes on, the age of the fetus, in which it is viable, has decreased as medical technology has increased and thus has upheld Roe v. Wade. Wherein (I believe) it was stated that anything after 7/8 months was considered viable (my memory is a bit rusty as it’s been a couple years since I’ve had to study the case) and at the time that I read the decision it was at least a month lower and possibly more.

My inclination would be that this, as you have presented, would be declared unlawful by the Court since they really do like to rely on the doctrine of stare decisis. They won’t overturn themselves, they’ve only done this a handful of times, one of the times was when they ruled segregation illegal after ruling many years before that it was. But, as the text of the bill ACTUALLY says, I believe that it would stand a challenge.

And, of course, no argument is made valid without links. So, included are the ones to THOMAS with the text of the bills.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1964:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1173:

]]> By: Sherry http://jacquedixon.com/?p=1860#comment-3080 Sherry Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:11:32 +0000 http://jacquedixon.com/?p=1860#comment-3080 I just went and signed and posting on my site. <abbr><em>Sherrys last blog post..<a href="http://lampuntomyfeetandalightuntomypath.blogspot.com/2008/11/making-my-home-haven-day-4.html" rel="nofollow">Making My Home a Haven - Thursday</a></abbr></em> I just went and signed and posting on my site.

Sherrys last blog post..Making My Home a Haven – Thursday

]]>