HB*1*(Summary)*2011-2012 Regular Session
Congressman Bobby Franklin puts forth the argument that the US Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn a state's rights to define murder. He makes a case that the state of Georgia was not a party to Roe v. Wade and is not covered by the ruling.
The constitutional argument begins at the very bottom of the first page and continues through to the top of page four.
"'Protection to person and property is the paramount duty of government and shall be impartial and complete. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.' Because a fetus is a person, constitutional protection attaches at the moment of conception."
"The Supreme Court's inability to determine what is human life cannot legitimately serve to prohibit Georgia from fulfilling its constitutional mandate to protect the lives of its citizens by prosecuting crimes against said person"
"The United States Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear or decide the case of Roe v. Wade or any other case pertaining to a state's punishment of the crime of prenatal murder"
"Georgia was not a party to the suit in Roe v. Wade, and is not bound by a decision in which it did not have right of participation"
Blowing in the wind? Or does he make some valid arguments?