[Apologetics] FW: Contraception, George Stephanopoulos, and the GOP Debate

Mon Jan 9 12:12:19 EST 2012

ABC spent about 15 minutes of the debate on this stupid issue.

One of the candidates should have said:

I know why you are asking this question.  Roe v. Wade was premised on a
right to privacy that is not mentioned in the constitution but was
established in the Griswold v. Connecticut decision.  So, let me explain
something to you.  There is a difference between whether a law is good
or bad and whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional.

You can have a good law that is unconstitutional and bad law that is
constitutional.  Griswold was the latter.

Griswold was another is a long series of idiotic Supreme Court
decisions.  But just because it is not unconstitutional for a state to
prohibit the sale of contraceptives to unmarried persons does not make
it a good law. No state legislature would pass such a law.

Since you're obviously looking for an excuse to justify Roe v Wade,
you're out of luck.  There is no constitutional right to kill an unborn
child!

Art

________________________________

From: Curt Levey (Committee for Justice)
[mailto:clevey at committeeforjustice.org] 
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 12:47 AM
To: Art Kelly
Subject: Contraception & the GOP Debate

 <http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_left.png>
<http://s.rs6.net/t?e=86BicWRQ_-s&c=1&r=1>
<http://s.rs6.net/t?e=86BicWRQ_-s&c=3&r=1>
<http://s.rs6.net/t?e=86BicWRQ_-s&c=4&r=1>
<http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_divider.png>
<http://s.rs6.net/t?e=86BicWRQ_-s&c=5&r=1>
<http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_right.png>
<http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Santorum--Romney---Judges.html?soid=
1103573877682&aid=86BicWRQ_-s#fblike> 	
 <http://ih.constantcontact.com/fs073/1103573877682/img/4.jpg> 	

Contraception & the GOP debate

January 7, 2012 

Statement
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=s6acczdab&et=1109056560633&s=3933&e=001vL
sjhph4PoX_G9d8aYPN9tza0z_ZvXj5RrvMmocMIlLZonO9QU7IOCbVREzja9x2SCj-XX-HlR
XrHof0BNxAOOdSE5EMc6lAfEYG_cPT3hwXTAMEEftAwTgrr1kSaDtQaxOF__4wACvDx1NOwa
hD9sxf04m4kx9hjtRLlb1xR7srFOhpAG9a6y5HgZh0KTEv>  of CFJ Executive
Director Curt Levey:

During tonight's GOP debate, moderator George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt
Romney "Do you believe states have the right to ban contraception, or is
that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?" Knowing that Romney
and most Americans would not support a government ban on contraceptives,
Stephanopoulos' apparent goal was to trip up Romney, who believes that
Roe v. Wade -- in which the Supreme Court relied on a supposed
constitutional right to privacy -- was wrongly decided.

  <http://ih.constantcontact.com/fs073/1103573877682/img/16.jpg> 

For non-lawyers, a general constitutional right to privacy was created
by the Court in its 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision, which struck
down an unenforced state law prohibiting contraception.

In addition to Romney, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul were drawn into the
debate over Stephanopoulos' question. Answering this question is
perilous only if one skips over the distinction between the legal issue
-- was Griswold rightly decided as a matter of constitutional
interpretation -- and the political question -- should states be
prohibited from banning contraception as a matter of federal policy,
presumably expressed through a federal statute or constitutional
amendment.

Perhaps Stephanopoulos was trying to blur this distinction. Or perhaps,
like most of the "living Constitution" crowd, he does not fully
comprehend the distinction. In any case, we wish the GOP contenders had
taken the opportunity to make the distinction clear, because it's at the
heart of the debate over judicial activism.

Opponents of judicial activism believe that judges' policy views -- say,
on the desirability of a general right to privacy -- should play no role
in constitutional interpretation -- for example, in determining whether
the Constitution's "penumbras" and "emanations" imply a right to
privacy, as Griswold concluded. Believers in a "living Constitution," on
the other hand, advocate that judges should update the meaning of the
Constitution to incorporate the evolving values of society (at least
those of elite society).

Permalink:

http://committeeforjustice.blogspot.com/2012/01/contraception-gop-debate
.html
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=s6acczdab&et=1109056560633&s=3933&e=001vL
sjhph4PoX_G9d8aYPN9tza0z_ZvXj5RrvMmocMIlLZonO9QU7IOCbVREzja9x2SCj-XX-HlR
XrHof0BNxAOOdSE5EMc6lAfEYG_cPT3hwXTAMEEftAwTgrr1kSaDtQaxOF__4wACvDx1NOwa
hD9sxf04m4kx9hjtRLlb1xR7srFOhpAG9a6y5HgZh0KTEv> 

"The Committee for Justice is at the forefront in educating the public
on the need to return to a constitutionalist judiciary." - former Senate
Majority Leader Bill Frist   

Curt Levey

Executive Director

The Committee for Justice 

722 12th Street, NW - 4th Floor 

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 270-7748 

clevey at committeeforjustice.org  

@Curt_Levey

Forward this e-mail
<http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?llr=s6acczdab&m=1103573877682
&ea=akelly%40americantarget.com&a=1109056560633> 

<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&mse=001nFupVrVrNd5ECjC6trWSa
Y_RoB3pR3SH&t=001n8cQL_KX1KdHGACrCNtfKw%3D%3D&llr=s6acczdab>
<http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=TEM_Press_200>  	
This email was sent to akelly at americantarget.com by
clevey at committeeforjustice.org |   
Update Profile/Email Address
<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&mse=001nFupVrVrNd5ECjC6trWSa
Y_RoB3pR3SH&t=001n8cQL_KX1KdHGACrCNtfKw%3D%3D&llr=s6acczdab>  | Instant
removal with SafeUnsubscribe
<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&mse=001nFupVrVrNd5ECjC6trWSa
Y_RoB3pR3SH&t=001n8cQL_KX1KdHGACrCNtfKw%3D%3D&llr=s6acczdab> (tm) |
Privacy Policy
<http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp> .
Committee for Justice | 722 12th Street, NW - 4th Floor | Washington |
DC | 20005

<http://r20.rs6.net/on.jsp?llr=s6acczdab&t=1109056560633.0.1103573877682
.3933&ts=S0710&o=http://ui.constantcontact.com/images/p1x1.gif> 
________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gathman.org/pipermail/apologetics/attachments/20120109/62363e25/attachment.html>