This time, Roe vs. Wade really could hang in the balance - Los Angeles Times
Through most of the 1990s and until recently, the Supreme Court had a solid 6-3 majority in favor of upholding the right of a woman to choose abortion. But the margin has shrunk to one, now that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is retired and has been replaced by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
And Justice John Paul Stevens, a leader of the narrow majority for abortion rights, is 88.
“Clearly, Roe is on the line this time,” said Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen, a former lawyer for NARAL Pro-Choice America. “It is quite clear they have four votes against it. If the next president appoints one more, the odds are it will be overruled.”
Anyone notice the bias in this liberal rag? If properly written, it would read: “…a solid 6-3 majority in favor of denying an unborn infant’s right to life….” or, if more even handed, “in favor of legalizing abortion.” In spite of the typical slant, the basic premise of the article is correct - this election will be consequential for this issue. The next president may appoint up to three judges - all from the liberal side of the court. This would change everything.
Anyone who votes for Barack Obama is explicitly voting for a continuation of the legalization of the greatest holocaust we have ever witnessed. If Barack Hussein Obama is elected president, not only will he sign the FOCA - which wipes away every restriction on abortion, he will guarantee a pro-abortion supreme court. This issue is larger than the war, the economy, and healthcare combined. This is akin to the struggle against slavery - an entire group of human beings are being denied fundamental human rights and a court has declared that they may be murdered with impunity. It is our duty to place the restoration of those rights as our highest priority.
Make no mistake, this is the human rights crisis of our day. Do not sit idly by while our fellow human beings are slaughtered by the millions - one innocent life at a time.
