Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

I Could Use Some Teeth Here

By Greg L | 21 November 2011 | 13th HOD District, Virginia Politics, Prince William County | 21 Comments

Delegate Bob Marshall has filed an interesting bill to ensure that unborn children are recognized as legal persons, setting off a firestorm among the left.  While the intent behind this is laudable, and it’s that very idea that drives those who want to protect the interests of abortionists crazy, I don’t think anyone on the left has actually bothered to read HB 1.

The crux of the matter is summed up in Section 4, which reads as follows in the pre-filed version of this bill:

The laws of this Commonwealth shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this Commonwealth, subject only to the Constitution of the United States and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States Supreme Court and specific provisions to the contrary in the statutes and constitution of this Commonwealth. (emphasis added)

Essentially, this bill says that unborn children are legal persons except when any other law or court precedent at the state or federal level says they aren’t, making this a pretty ineffective way to protect the unborn in my view.  This doesn’t even try to challenge Roe v. Wade, and specifically acknowledges it and every other law and decision supporting abortion on demand as trumping this bill.  I’d be just as happy to strike this whole section, let the laws be in conflict, and have the court fight that would inevitably come.

Having a shot at getting Roe v. Wade overturned, even if it’s not one that may be likely to prevail is a whole lot better in my view than waiting for something to happen someday by someone else.  If we’re serious about this, let’s just have the fight that liberals think we’re engaging in, but actually not engaging in yet.  I see no reason to wait, and no reason to ask for less than we really want.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

21 Comments

  1. legislative strategy guy said on 22 Nov 2011 at 12:32 am:
    Flag comment

    I assume the primary strategy is to enact sections 1 and 2, with section 4 effectively eliminating some opposition from the middle since Roe v. Wade is still good law, thereby making the bill easier to pass. Then, if Roe v. Wade is overturned at some point, a statute containing sections 1 and 2 would already be in place. In other words it would be easier to get such a statute enacted while Roe v. Wade is still good law than it would be if and when Roe v. Wade is overturned, as the stakes for the left and some of the middle would then be far higher. Thus, the legislative strategy underlying the bill appears sound and not just symbolic. The fact that it appears merely symbolic masks the underlying strategy and makes it easier to pass now. That’s a potentially very effective strategy. Thoughts?

  2. Steve Thomas said on 22 Nov 2011 at 12:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    I think it is preemptive. Put the law in place, and as the preemptive state and federal laws are overturned, this law “grows” teeth. Pretty smart, actually.

  3. Former Fetus said on 22 Nov 2011 at 2:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Delegate Bob puts the liberals and rinos to shame year after year, he is an example of an honorable politiican.

  4. Joe Doc said on 22 Nov 2011 at 3:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    Bob knows what he’s doing.

  5. Oscar said on 22 Nov 2011 at 3:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    If an unborn is not a person why am I paying child support on something that was nothing in the first place?

  6. Karla H said on 22 Nov 2011 at 4:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    By crying to our government to make abortion legal or illegal we are abdicating our rights as citizens. We are elevating our government to be “a parent” that tells us what is right and wrong, legal and illegal.

    Work this abortion issue out amongst yourselves. I don’t really care what the outcome is. Publish papers (either way), hold rallies (either way)… but quit giving the government more power. They have enough. And they are abusing it.

  7. Anonymous said on 22 Nov 2011 at 6:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    What did I tell you guys! More B.S. social conservative religious theology shamed down our throats! The belief that a bag of cells has a soul “blown into it” is religius in nature only! Heck why not make the sale of condoms and there use considerd preemtive murder if we go allong with religious dogma on this topic!

    I ques that we protect a bag of cells as having supream right over a thirteen year old girl that was raped by some chiuwawa looking illegal alien!

    Fix the roads, support the corts fund the police but keep your religious to yourselfs on when a fetus becomes a person!

    If the morning afterpill was widely available you would not have these problems.

    Who are you to force a couple to have a child with down syndrone????

    I dont see many right to lifers looking to take in one of these kids at adoption?

  8. Anonymous said on 22 Nov 2011 at 6:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    What ever happend to jobs jobs jobs? Manassas is littered with social conservatives, the REAL RINOS if you ask me!

  9. Greg L said on 22 Nov 2011 at 8:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Bag of cells.” That’s a new one to me.

    Seeing that such a “bag of cells” is fundamentally indistinguishable from you, Anonymous Coward, in every meaningful respect, I suppose you won’t object if we just snuff out your life if you become inconvenient to someone else.

    Hey, I’ve never seen anyone step forward to suffer the presence of liberal like you, after all. It would be heartless to demand they do. Much easier to just put an end to the malfunctioning “bag of cells” in a case like this, as it’s simpler for everyone.

    Ah, liberal illogic is so amusing…

  10. Anonymous said on 22 Nov 2011 at 11:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oh son we go from a bag of cells to selective murder based on mental and physical health.
    Try to adopt a child, why do so many couples adopt children from other counties, because for a few hundred bucks you can legally take a life

  11. Greg L said on 22 Nov 2011 at 11:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Isn’t that in many ways what abortion is these days?

  12. Anonymous said on 23 Nov 2011 at 6:23 am:
    Flag comment

    http://www.medicinenet.com/fetal_development_pictures_slideshow/article.htm

    Bag of cells at four weeks

  13. Anonymous said on 23 Nov 2011 at 6:39 am:
    Flag comment

    Quit complaining then about the illegals having ancore babys. Open your wallets with your tax dollars for wic, health care and schools! High light them along side Sudly road and embrace them. I am quite shure if jesus read your vile on humanity, he would consider you Greg to be a hypocrite first class!

  14. Anonymous said on 23 Nov 2011 at 12:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    Try again in English, anon.

    You douchebag.

  15. Joe Doc said on 23 Nov 2011 at 1:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Someone needs to take the laptop away from Joe Biden (aka Anonymous)

  16. Pat said on 23 Nov 2011 at 5:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    I am glad that every other item on the agenda is complete, and to his liking, that this is the most important issue for him to spend any time on.

  17. Tired_Repub said on 26 Nov 2011 at 3:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    As a Republican myself, I think if the party would concentrate more on issues such as fiscal responsibility, rather than worrying about who is sleeping with who, and about abortion, they would have a much easier time retaining power in government. It’s easier to get elected when you appeal to a wider audience.

  18. Lloyd the Idiot said on 26 Nov 2011 at 11:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Marshall’s bill is an example of where Rs could really overreach. Granted, this is nothing new for Marshall, but it’s passage would be horrible for Republican chances in 2013.

  19. sandy said on 28 Nov 2011 at 12:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    If an individual CHOOSES to become pregnant, by not using protection, this is her choice. WHY SHOULD TAX PAYERS BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER MISTAKE. SHE SHOULD PAY FOR HER OWN ABORTION OR KEEP THE BABY. She knew what would occur,

  20. June - Reston said on 13 Dec 2011 at 5:08 am:
    Flag comment

    As long as Roe v Wade is the law, this bill will be challenged as contrary to the law, and should be. I agree it is over reach and perceived by many as a bill based on religious beliefs more than constitutional rights – a waste of time, money and resources (i.e. our tax dollars).

    Thomas Jefferson is my main man, and he defined religious freedom as: No one religion shall ever become so large and so powerful as to overshadow any other religion, however small. As an FYI: In this great nation, Christianity is NOT the only religion, nor should it be the religion that dictates government rule.

    Although I am an avid conservative and support much of the Republican agenda, specifically fiscal accountability and responsibility, I am not at all comfortable with the radical evangelical movement I am seeing in the party today, nor can I support anyone who wears their personal religious beliefs on their sleeve, and tries to intertwine it with the Constitution.

    May I remind everyone, when the Puritans first fled England to escape religious persecution, they established the very same type of government they fled, a religious based government, excluding “non believers” from business ownership and holding public/political office. Our forefathers had the forethought and wisdom to squash this early on, replacing a religious based government with one guided by our Constitution. It makes me very uncomfortable that today a group of radical evangelicals are trying to devalue our Constitution, a document for ALL, for a religious based government style that serves few.

    When I vote for a candidate, it will be someone who will represent the people of this country according to our Constitution (the national bible for ALL), not someone who is trying to convert the country to Christianity. Party affiliation will NOT be a factor.

    I know this is not the consensus of this group, but it is becoming a growing consensus among Republicans in general, which is evidenced by the declining approval rating of both parties, and the call for a more “middle of the road” Democrat and Republicans to serve our country.

    Feel free to zing the barbs if you must.

  21. June - Reston said on 13 Dec 2011 at 5:26 am:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous said on 22 Nov 2011 at 11:32 pm: ……. why do so many couples adopt children from other counties ……
    =====================

    Because our laws are written to make it especially difficult for adoptive parents, and encourages single mothers and fathers to keep their children by offering a plethora of benefits and services.

    Our adoption laws allow a waiting period between the time a child is placed with the adoptive parents and the adoption is finalized. During this period, the birth mother may be able to regain custody of her child. However, once the adoption is finalized the birth mother’s and father’s parental rights are terminated and they cannot reclaim their child. The waiting period is determined by the state, some as long as a year, others days.

    No adoptive parents want to bond with a child only to have the child legally take from them 6 months to a year later. Further, many of the babies given up for adoption today are deemed “damaged goods” - children of addicts and with serious medical problems.

    Adopting a child from a foreign country is easier, cheaper and faster than in the US. Our government discourages in-country adoptions by placing roadblocks in the way of adoptive parents.

Leave a Reply



Views: 1096