It is interesting to be categorized by readers of this blog. When GOP conservatives (quasi) and Kool-Aid drinking Limbaugh fanatics cannot respond intellectually to what I have written, they attach an appellative to you. They want to categorically stigmatize you with a label that makes them feel good about their ignorant selves. Several of the aforementioned have erroneously labeled me as a liberal, are you ever wrong on that appellative! I make Pat Buchanan look like he is still in Kindergarten by comparison. Am I a radical? No! I am a balanced conservative that studies the issues being considered, and then offer intellectual response (s). In other words I think before I engage my mouth, something that true liberals and arm-chair critics do not. One issue that recently came to my attention was Obama’s stance on abortion. Rick Warren, a poser minister if there ever was one, queried Obama on the when life begins question seeking the old abortion stance response that so many politicians and people running for office face. Obama’s response was not strong to Warren’s must ask question, but for a liberal, it was better than some that I’ve heard over the years. Maybe Obama did not want to be caught up in a trap by responding to the question another way. Why is this question so important that it demands an emphatic answer? Are there not more important issues that affect most Americans? Now I want to posit something for consideration. Does it really make a difference on what the candidate believes concerning this issue? NO, and I’ll tell you why.

This same query was posed to Bush forty-one. Bush is a pro-life president. And I think Obama in all reality is the same. For whatever reason the candidates must pander to every lobby group under the sun and give them the answers they want to hear to get elected to office. Once in office they can change positions on the issues, elected officials flip-flop on beliefs and issues all the time. But, what if anything can be done about the abortion issue? Can Roe v Wade be overturned? Yes, it is possible but for now highly unlikely. Bush forty-one has been in office for almost eight years now. My question is this; has he been able to get Roe v Wade overturned during his time in office? No he has not! Now why do you suppose this is? Time for a little back in time lesson! In landmark Supreme Court cases Roe v Wade stands as monumental. In 1992, the Supreme Court decided the case of Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania vs. Casey. This case was presented in hopes of changing Roe v Wade. Because the make-up of the Court had changed and become more conservative since Roe was first decided, many people believed that the Court might use this case to overturn Roe altogether. But what happened? 

In a 5-4 decision the Court reaffirmed its commitment to Roe and to the basic right of a woman to have an abortion under certain circumstances. Justice O’Connor, who authored the majority opinion, argued that stare decisis required the Court to not overturn Roe. Stare decisis is the general principal that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from (landmarkcases.org). Yes, stare Decisis came into play and the court ruled against Casey. Incidentally, I am from Pennsylvania and I supported Governor Casey completely in this case. However, it is very difficult to overturn cases wherein stare decisis is the precedent by preceding court cases. The full legal term is "stare decisis et quieta non movere" meaning "stand by decisions and do not move that which is still".  Oh, this happened during the end of Bush one and the beginning of Clinton presidencies. Now to return to point; If Bush one followed by Clinton, followed by Bush two could not change the Roe v Wade ruling, what’s the point and why even ask the abortion question? Doesn’t this issue appear to be a moot point? What would it take to change this ruling? A complete conservative Supreme Court with a test case to challenge the current ruling could result in overturning Roe v Wade. But, will it happen any time soon is the question. Look how hard it was to get conservative judges on the Supreme Court to start with. The moderates on the court are not pro life vote guarantees, and neither are the avowed liberals willing to cast their vote in favor of overturning this flawed decision any time soon.  (BTW, if you want my true stance on what should be done with beyond doubt convicted murderers specifically with aggravating circumstances such as cop killers, you can bring me a truckload of rocks as I have a lot of work to do!) Just thought I would insert that little personal gem.  Anyway, don’t look for change anytime soon on Roe v Wade. But, wouldn’t it be a shocker if Obama was elected president and pushed for this to be overturned, wishful thinking, perhaps. I do believe however, there is more to Obama than meets the eye. 

Chief Justice John Robert’s opinion on this volatile issue taken from the Washington Post September 15, 2005.

“Judge Roberts made clear that he believes the Constitution contains a right to privacy, and he expressed his agreement with high-court decisions striking down bans on contraception. While he declined to address the merits of Roe v. Wade, he did indicate that it is a decision to which stare decisis considerations properly apply. Importantly, he said several times that the subsequent decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey -- which reaffirmed Roe’s core principle -- was independently entitled to be treated as a precedent. That implies that there would be a heavy burden for the court in upsetting abortion rights now. Judge Roberts was careful not to say what he would do, but his comments suggest that he appreciates the difficulty of eliminating a right the court has solemnly declared, and redeclared, in the past.”