Disgusted with Gary Jacobsen’s column
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Paul Ross
Published: May 28, 2008
As a military officer and Iraq veteran sworn to defend the Constitution, I was disgusted with Mr. Gary Jacobsen’s convoluted defense of the “constitutional right” to kill unborn children, in the May 27 column, “Questions and answers about abortion rights.”
It added nothing but hubris to Roe v. Wade’s already twisted constitutional logic (creating rights to “privacy” and abortion under the Constitution where none exists).
Moreover, the column completely sidestepped the issue of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to overturn the Virginia ban on partial-birth infanticide — materially indistinguishable from the federal
Partial Birth Abortion Act, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
How ironic that Roe v. Wade used the 14th Amendment to decide that unborn children are not “persons” — the same amendment which overturned the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision that declared slaves and freed slaves were not “citizens.”
And how bizarre that two liberal activist judges are able to thwart the will of the democratically elected legislature and governor of Virginia to ban a gruesome, medically unnecessary procedure wherein the
baby is mostly delivered, only to have its skull punctured and brains sucked out, in order to deliver a dead baby. Some constitutional right.
PAUL ROSS
Montclair
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( Grant Gary Jacobsen ) on May 30, 2008 at 3:12 pm
It sure looks like all these angry letters were submitted by men, doesn’t it? The Taliban also denigrate their women and deny them any rights.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( barnun ) on May 30, 2008 at 11:07 am
So here’s the thing about partial birth abortion. If a woman was raped, I’m sure she’d know that within the first trimester. Partial birth abortion is a late term abortion and as the name implies, the child is partially birthed and then terminated. A child is viable outside that womb at approximately 27 weeks. If a child is capable of living without depending on the mother, than how can the mother have the “right” to terminate that life ? There really is no “health and wellbeing” to be argued for the mother since the process is natural child birth. If the mother can handle the natural child birth process to terminate the life, then she could handle the process to deliver the life. A viable child in conscious. Under this arguement, a mother should have the right to terminate her children at any age if they give her a headache. Roe V Wade is a decision, an opinion that could be changed at any time. Roe V wade was not meant for partial birth abortion. Roe V wade stands because it was a Supreme Court decision so why is the decision on partial birth abortion disregarded ? The abortion laws also protect rapists by allowing children to get abortions without parental consent. Should their be any course of action for any judge of a lower court that attempts to overturn a supreme court decision ?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on May 30, 2008 at 10:51 am
SGS,
If you go back and check, it was Republicans “rioting” outside the Dade County offices where ballots were attempted to be counted. As angry as I felt about the SCOTUS decision I respected it, as did the person most affected; President-Elect Al Gore.
President-Elect Gore went on to win a noble prize and an Oscar, not to mention numerous other accolades. He started a new multi-media network and became a world-class statesman. The SCOTUS-appointed president Bush has gone on to have a 28% approval rating, led us into two losing wars, wrecked our economy, legalized torture and made it national policy. He is already considered to be among the worse, if not THE worse, president this great nation has ever had.
Really bad choice of example there, SGS.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( SGS ) on May 29, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I was merely making a point about statements below that referred to the Supreme Court’s decision as a law.
I certainly agree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Constitutional right to make decisions.
I’d like to know how you felt about the Court’s right to decide, when it ruled in favor of George W. Bush’s election.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Paul Ross ) on May 29, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Jacobsen, defending the constitution also includes protesting incoherent, inhumane abuse of judicial power which has resulted in 40 million or more American deaths since 1973. And yes, I respect the right of the Supreme Court to make a decision—i.e when they upheld the Partial Birth Abortion ban. Unfortunately, a lower court (4th Circuit Court of Appeals) presumed to know better, inventing a bizarre hypothetical case to justify their “undue burden to women” ruling. I again note that you completely side-stepped this issue—the one issue that presumably prompted you to lecture the general assembly on the “rudimentary” basics of abortion justification.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Grant Gary Jacobsen ) on May 29, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Oh please. There is no need to wrap yourself in an American flag when you make comments. “Defending the Constitution” surely includes supporting the right of U. S. Supreme Court judges to make decisions (such as Roe v. Wade).
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( phdee ) on May 29, 2008 at 12:03 pm
So you are military officer and Iraq veteran? So what? Does that make you “special”, give you more rights (and intelligence) than anyone one else. What is the relevance to abortion and the Jacobson article. Answer: NONE. You are obviously a Catholic parroting the religious line. Kill any Iraqi’s in Iraq? Thou shall not kill. Seems you’ve made killing a life occupation.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( SGS ) on May 29, 2008 at 10:41 am
Roe v. Wade is not a law, nor is it the “Rule of Law.“ It was a Supreme Court decision that overturned anti-abortion rights laws—countering the will of the majority of the people. The important distinction is one of representation. Laws are passed by legislators who are elected by and therefor represent citizens. Unlike the Justices of the Supreme Court who are selected by the President. The court’s role, as defined in the Constituion, is to interpret the Constitution, not to amend it.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( cobra ) on May 29, 2008 at 9:35 am
Worry not Mr. Ross,
Jacobsen has about two friends that post here on this site. He writes the most ridiculous articles including his open support of illegal immigration in PW County. He even admitted to hiring day labors to paint his house. Not sure if you are aware but Jacobsen is a retired Marine Officer. Is that not a kick in the groin when you read his articles? Most of us just skip over his articles when posted. As you stated, he will support the constitutional right to kill a baby but will not support my constitutional right to fight to keep illegal aliens out of our community. My Father is an 80 year old retired Marine and is ashamed that Jacobsen has the same distinction.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( willow703 ) on May 29, 2008 at 9:24 am
What Mr. Jacobsen didn’t discuss, and what most anti-abortion folks insist upon & refuse to discuss, are the victims of rape and incest.
The anti-abortion crowd says the rights of the unborn child outweigh the rights of the victim because the unborn child didn’t commit the crime. How’s that for convoluted interpretation of the Constitution?
Who cares about the trauma inflicted upon a 13 or 14-year old child? Lock her in a hospital room, shackle her to a delivery table and donate the child to someone who will never know the horrible circumstances of its inception & birth.
Partial-birth abortion is a straw-man that those favoring abortion on demand have, in their ignorance, set up for those who oppose abortion for any reason. The “Bible tells me so” refuse to consider anything else. As far as they are considered, this is a “Christian nation” and the Bible, written by men in languages they can’t read or understand, overrules a constitution, written, by men, in a language they also can’t understand.
Students, the question is: Shall there be forced delivery of a child conceived
during an act of rape or incest? Yes or no? Show your work.
Report Inappropriate Comment