Me & Mrs. Palin

[Gonz]

*needs duct tape to avoid answering*

 

[chcr]

You sir, frequentlty ask "remember when this used to be America?". Yes, I do. Do you?

Then I guess the question really is why are you so against it being America?

 

[randomJACKASS]

Gonz's economic strategies have been tried so many times and failed so many times, it is a wonder there are any believers left.

 

[catocom]

Then I guess the question really is why are you so against it being America?

remember way back when the senate had to have 61 votes on big issuses?

 

[Gonz]

Then I guess the question really is why are you so against it being America?

Please, point out where I'm propose limiting freedom or keeping the fedreal government in check or putting the group before the individual.

Gonz's economic strategies have been tried so many times and failed so many times, it is a wonder there are any believers left.

So many times? You know that since the late 1800's. and especially sicne the turn of the century, we've had liberal & progressive movements controlling most of our government. Read up on teh Roosevelts. Hoover. Wilson. Hell, damn near everyone up to Reagan 'cept Harding, Eisenhower & Truman.

 

[Gonz]

remember way back when the senate had to have 61 votes on big issuses?

You mean the rule set in place by the Contract with America & tossed out by Miss Open Congress herself, Nancy Pelosi?

 

[spike]

I think he's complaining about Bush using the reconciliation process to force those tax cut disasters and drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.

 

[chcr]

Hell, damn near everyone up to Reagan 'cept Harding, Eisenhower & Truman.

Truman tried to get mandatory health insurance instituted and Eisenhower was an advocate of health care reform and government subsidies for health insurance.

Edit: History does not relate their stands on "Death Panels."

 

[Gonz]

So, for 50+ years they've been crying wolf & still we stand.

 

[spike]

Who's crying wolf? What?

 

[chcr]

So, for 50+ years they've been crying wolf & still we stand.

Yeah, that's it.

Or maybe, just maybe if we had addressed this problem fifty years ago or health care system might not be on the verge of collapse today?

The point was that even people whom you admire recognized the problem with the system before you were born and yet you blithely continue to accept the lies told to you by people who blatantly couldn't care less about the nation or it's citizens' best interest.

The government and the media have a tendency to exaggerate most problems out of all proportion. Unfortunately, as with the economy last year, this is not one of those times.

 

[Gonz]

WHAT PROBLEM??? There is no problem with our medical system, except the costs, caused by government regulation & legislation.

They've been trying to socialize medicine by making it a government handout.

That's beyond their authority.

Please, tell me what "lies" I've been told. Not that it mattes because, simply, IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENTS JOB.

 

[Frank Probity]

What you fail to notice is the simple fact that I, and most like me, don't want our government to do someting. anything. We are not changing the sytem. We aren't writing new & stupid laws. We wish our system to go on, as intended & as planned, giving the people the freedom to take care of themselves. You, and those like you, are thieves. Reaching into my pocket because it makes you feel better about yourself & because we should.

You sir, frequentlty ask "remember when this used to be America?". Yes, I do. Do you?

Progressives be damned.

HA! What the "pubs, far right, fanatical religious right or whatever the nineteen percenters are calling themselves these days (birthers maybe?) they seem to relish in the thought what is taking place is, "new." Well, it ain't. And Gonz, you do not remember it. What you do remember is the way you would like it to be but not the way it was. Because one recollection of the way things used to be was, people lived with the results of a free election without all the discord, bull droppings and lies being bandied about by the sore losers on the right. The right can't stand the simple fact they lost and the reason they lost is because the previous administration had them buried in mushroom food and they loved it. Some even called it nirvana.

The reality of the situation by comparison to what you think you remember of how America used to be is that previous republican administrations have had ample opportunity to remove all traces of what they so willing call "socialism" today. In nearly every instance that a "socialist" agenda was passed, republicans were smack dab in the middle of the mix. When opportunities to vote these "socialist" programs were theirs to change, republicans did what they always do, looked the other way. Unless of course, it was to give a few more "socialist" perks to industry.

So, that being said, take your commentary of how America used to be and sell it to someone else because it isn't going to fly here. Especially after the last eight years.

 

[Gonz]

In a more remote stage, the imports may consist in a considerable part of raw materials, which will be wrought into articles for exportation, and will, therefore, require rather the encouragement of bounties, than to be loaded with discouraging duties. A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them. Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.

''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.

But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.

But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

HAVING shown that no one of the powers transferred to the federal government is unnecessary or improper, the next question to be considered is, whether the whole mass of them will be dangerous to the portion of authority left in the several States. The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form?

It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us. Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.

We have seen, in all the examples of ancient and modern confederacies, the strongest tendency continually betraying itself in the members, to despoil the general government of its authorities, with a very ineffectual capacity in the latter to defend itself against the encroachments. Although, in most of these examples, the system has been so dissimilar from that under consideration as greatly to weaken any inference concerning the latter from the fate of the former, yet, as the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty, the inference ought not to be wholly disregarded. In the Achaean league it is probable that the federal head had a degree and species of power, which gave it a considerable likeness to the government framed by the convention. The Lycian Confederacy, as far as its principles and form are transmitted, must have borne a still greater analogy to it. Yet history does not inform us that either of them ever degenerated, or tended to degenerate, into one consolidated government. On the contrary, we know that the ruin of one of them proceeded from the incapacity of the federal authority to prevent the dissensions, and finally the disunion, of the subordinate authorities. These cases are the more worthy of our attention, as the external causes by which the component parts were pressed together were much more numerous and powerful than in our case; and consequently less powerful ligaments within would be sufficient to bind the members to the head, and to each other.

In the feudal system, we have seen a similar propensity exemplified. Notwithstanding the want of proper sympathy in every instance between the local sovereigns and the people, and the sympathy in some instances between the general sovereign and the latter, it usually happened that the local sovereigns prevailed in the rivalship for encroachments. Had no external dangers enforced internal harmony and subordination, and particularly, had the local sovereigns possessed the affections of the people, the great kingdoms in Europe would at this time consist of as many independent princes as there were formerly feudatory barons. The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other. The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them.

On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members. The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States. There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter. The members of the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments of thirteen and more States, the justices of peace, officers of militia, ministerial officers of justice, with all the county, corporation, and town officers, for three millions and more of people, intermixed, and having particular acquaintance with every class and circle of people, must exceed, beyond all proportion, both in number and influence, those of every description who will be employed in the administration of the federal system. Compare the members of the three great departments of the thirteen States, excluding from the judiciary department the justices of peace, with the members of the corresponding departments of the single government of the Union; compare the militia officers of three millions of people with the military and marine officers of any establishment which is within the compass of probability, or, I may add, of possibility, and in this view alone, we may pronounce the advantage of the States to be decisive. If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also. And as those of the former will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side.

It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States. Indeed it is extremely probable, that in other instances, particularly in the organization of the judicial power, the officers of the States will be clothed with the correspondent authority of the Union. Should it happen, however, that separate collectors of internal revenue should be appointed under the federal government, the influence of the whole number would not bear a comparison with that of the multitude of State officers in the opposite scale. Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State. The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them.

The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens; and the latter will be no more bound than the States themselves have been, to pay the quotas respectively taxed on them. Had the States complied punctually with the articles of Confederation, or could their compliance have been enforced by as peaceable means as may be used with success towards single persons, our past experience is very far from countenancing an opinion, that the State governments would have lost their constitutional powers, and have gradually undergone an entire consolidation. To maintain that such an event would have ensued, would be to say at once, that the existence of the State governments is incompatible with any system whatever that accomplishes the essental purposes of the Union.

Written by James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution"

"General Welfare", the only clause that comes close to allowing communism, is held to the welfare of the state not the individual. Progressivsim has taken the power from the individual & placed it upon the greater good, in opposition to the Constitution & to the founders wishes. It takes my freedom & hands power to the federal government, in opposition to the Constitution.

For over a hundred years, we've been indoctrinated to feel bad for our brothers. Well, sometime I do. When I do, I have the choice whether or not to reach into my pocket & assist him. Whether or not to grab a hammer & assist him. Whether or not to reach onto my table & feed him. I have that choice. You, and people like you, have taken that choice away by reaching into my pocket, onto my table & onto my labor & stealing from me. Tha is not a choice. That is theivery.

The depression was made into the Great Depresion by poor economic choices by the fedeal government. Starting with, in many ways, by the creation of the Federal Reserve. Every recession we've had has been worsened by the fed trying to stop it. It, like the earths warming & cooling cycles, are common & necessary cycles. However, a few do-gooders, trying to stop a little pain, create a hemmoraging, festering wound that creates far more problems that it solves. I don't want our medical community to end up in that same boat.

Get government out of the system. Keep government bottled up, as spelled out in the Constitution. Teach people to take care of themselves. Remeind them that they are their own keeper, until family, friends & acquaitances decide, upon their own good will, to help. We the people always have & there's no evidence that we will stop. Dont buy it? Look into Katrina (over $4,000,000,000 cash donated) & the Asian tsunami (over $400,000,000 in private American cash donations).

We the people, not we the government.

If you really want change, then follow the Constitution (rememebr when this used tO be America) & AMEND IT. Then I will have no beef.

 

[Gonz]

HA! What the "pubs, far right, fanatical religious right or whatever the nineteen percenters are calling themselves these days (birthers maybe?) they seem to relish in the thought what is taking place is, "new." Well, it ain't. And Gonz, you do not remember it. What you do remember is the way you would like it to be but not the way it was. Because one recollection of the way things used to be was, people lived with the results of a free election without all the discord, bull droppings and lies being bandied about by the sore losers on the right. The right can't stand the simple fact they lost and the reason they lost is because the previous administration had them buried in mushroom food and they loved it. Some even called it nirvana.

The reality of the situation by comparison to what you think you remember of how America used to be is that previous republican administrations have had ample opportunity to remove all traces of what they so willing call "socialism" today. In nearly every instance that a "socialist" agenda was passed, republicans were smack dab in the middle of the mix. When opportunities to vote these "socialist" programs were theirs to change, republicans did what they always do, looked the other way. Unless of course, it was to give a few more "socialist" perks to industry.

So, that being said, take your commentary of how America used to be and sell it to someone else because it isn't going to fly here. Especially after the last eight years.

I have no argument with you. As I've pointed out, Republicans are as bad as Democrats. Their job is to get elected & then to stay elected. There are good people on both sides. They are, by far, the minority. I am not a republican so you can drop that attack. It's pointless.

Want change? Term limits is the only option.

 

[valkyrie]

The middle does nothing but check the wind.

I strongly disagree with that. I consider myself somewhere in the middle. Those who are in the middle seek to make change that will make the least negative impact on the people.

I am far left when it comes to religious infringements on the citizen. I am far right (past Republican) when it comes to the land ownership. I am somewhere slightly to the left when it comes to a land owner's right to do as he/she pleases with the natural resources and ecology of the land he/she owns.

There are logical limits to everything and one should never be far anything so much so that you become a fascist, dictating oppressive regulations and laws onto the general populace.

Example #1. If your religious beliefs are that life begins when the sperm shoots out of the man's penis and one penetrates the ovum... then don't have an abortion. But your religious views should not dictate the lives of those who do not share your beliefs. If you think having an abortion sends you to the fabled "hell" of Dante Alighieri, then don't have an abortion. Simple as that.

Example #2. If you don't think people should own and drive SUV's for any reason whatsoever, then don't own or drive an SUV. If you believe that SUV's are the cause of global warming, then change people's views on SUV's with persuasion. Don't make it illegal to own one.

 

[Gonz]

I am somewhere slightly to the left when it comes to a land owner's right to do as he/she pleases with the natural resources and ecology of the land he/she owns.

Either we have private ownership, or we do not. Doing as I please, to what i own, is not your concern. Period. If you don't like it, buy it.

There are logical limits to everything and one should never be far anything so much so that you become a fascist, dictating oppressive regulations and laws onto the general populace.

That's all I ask. Less interference from our federal government. State rules & regualtions are between the citizen & their government.

As far as abortion...I am pro-choice. I only ask that people look that choice in the eye instead of skirting around the issue (it's just some cells).

However, there is a clause in the Preamble that makes government support of abortion questionable...the RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY & THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

 

[2minkey]

no, no val, you don't understand... gonz will save all of us by spewing milquetoast from his sofa.

 

[valkyrie]

Written by James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution"

"General Welfare", the only clause that comes close to allowing communism, is held to the welfare of the state not the individual. Progressivsim has taken the power from the individual & placed it upon the greater good, in opposition to the Constitution & to the founders wishes. It takes my freedom & hands power to the federal government, in opposition to the Constitution.

For over a hundred years, we've been indoctrinated to feel bad for our brothers. Well, sometime I do. When I do, I have the choice whether or not to reach into my pocket & assist him. Whether or not to grab a hammer & assist him. Whether or not to reach onto my table & feed him. I have that choice. You, and people like you, have taken that choice away by reaching into my pocket, onto my table & onto my labor & stealing from me. Tha is not a choice. That is theivery.

The depression was made into the Great Depresion by poor economic choices by the fedeal government. Starting with, in many ways, by the creation of the Federal Reserve. Every recession we've had has been worsened by the fed trying to stop it. It, like the earths warming & cooling cycles, are common & necessary cycles. However, a few do-gooders, trying to stop a little pain, create a hemmoraging, festering wound that creates far more problems that it solves. I don't want our medical community to end up in that same boat.

Get government out of the system. Keep government bottled up, as spelled out in the Constitution. Teach people to take care of themselves. Remeind them that they are their own keeper, until family, friends & acquaitances decide, upon their own good will, to help. We the people always have & there's no evidence that we will stop. Dont buy it? Look into Katrina (over $4,000,000,000 cash donated) & the Asian tsunami (over $400,000,000 in private American cash donations).

We the people, not we the government.

If you really want change, then follow the Constitution (rememebr when this used tO be America) & AMEND IT. Then I will have no beef.

Many states have already violated the intent of the Founding Fathers by passing laws against same-sex marriage.

As for the Great Depression... go read about the Smoot-Hawley Tarrif and the consequences of that. This was one of the "bad choices" by the federal government. The public infrastructure programs that were used to put people to work is what saved our ass from a more prolonged depression during the Great Depression.

As for the "medical community", don't listen to their tripe. I work for a "non-profit" hospital system chain. (Same "non-profit" that had to remove a window panel on the 4th floor of a new administrative building and rent a crane to get a new, custom built desk into an administrator's new office.) Doctors want to make mistakes and not pay for the damage they do to their patients (medical malpractice suits). They want the government to step in and give patients no recourse when a doctor or hospital makes a serious mistake. But they don't want any other government interference.

Doctors are allowed to charge a much higher price to a private (no-insurance) patient and give a deep discount to the insurance company. I've been told that, by a law pushed through by the insurance companies, a doctor can not give the same deep discount to a cash patient off the street. Private patients supplement the cost of insurance companies, thus increasing their profits at the expense of those that have no insurance. The idea that a free-market would benefit the medical system and bring prices down will not work as long as the insurance companies and the medical profession have their lobbyists working for them. There is never going to be a free-market medical system in this country as long as these 2 groups maintain their power.

There is a sense of entitlement among the doctors that makes me sick. You don't think that $500K house is free for doctors, do you? Where do you think the money comes from for the new car and boat? If doctors were in the medical profession to help people they'd be getting paid what teachers get paid. They think nothing of over charging a patient for services (15 minutes of examination in the ER = 3 hours?) so much so that the hospital system has to do an in-service with all new doctors and a yearly in-service with all current doctors to keep them from getting audited (not that the audit would ever find anything at all).

Medical fraud is estimated in the billions each year. This isn't a patient getting money from their insurance company or from Medicare... these are CLAIMS submitted for services not rendered or medical equipment not provided to the patient. The problem is NOT with the public... the problem is with the STATUS QUO for the medical system.

For those of you who think that the medical profession is not in need of change, think again.

 

[valkyrie]

Either we have private ownership, or we do not. Doing as I please, to what i own, is not your concern. Period. If you don't like it, buy it.



That's all I ask. Less interference from our federal government. State rules & regualtions are between the citizen & their government.

As far as abortion...I am pro-choice. I only ask that people look that choice in the eye instead of skirting around the issue (it's just some cells).

However, there is a clause in the Preamble that makes government support of abortion questionable...the RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY & THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

When you damn up the creek and prevent the flow of water to my land you are infringing upon my ownership.

If you are dumping poison on your land and it leaks into my well you are violating my rights.

You don't believe that the government should protect me from your poor choices?

Not sure what you mean about "look that choice in the eye". Forced, unnecessary medical tests (sonogram)? Forced viewing of a pro-life video on how precious the gift of the lord is? Where does that stop? You nor I have the right to dictate that on anyone. They are not affecting our lives with their choice.

Your choice of the phrase from the Preamble does not support a ban on abortion because the word "life" is not defined as sperm enters ovum. If this were the case, by the way, why are we not burying spontaneous abortions ("miscarriages" of 2 or 3 months)? We could put the discharge in a Mason jar and pay for a proper burial for "the lord's gift of life".