Durbin's Concern [For Human Rights Violations] Stops at the Abortion Clinic Door

World Net Daily ^ | 6/18/05 | Robert Knight

[gopwinsin04]

In 2003, when the US Senate voter overwhemingly to ban the procedure known as partial birth abortion, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Il) voted 'nay.'

Earlier, Durbin has tried to scam the Senate with an amendment that would have left the door wide open for doctors to justify virtually any abortion.

After his ruse failed, he voted against the final bill, which passed 64-33.

The senators humanitarian impulses towards terror suspects seem curious, given his efforts to protect the abortionists 'rights.'

Sen. Durbin has given aid and comfort to our enemies, smeared good Americans and implicitly minimized the scope of crimes committed by the totalitarian regiemes he cited.

[gopwinsin04]

Will he be forced to come to the Senate body in full to give his half hearted 'apology' again?

[ncountylee]

Not if we don't continue to raise a fire storm with our Congressman and Senators. Editorial letters help too.

[gopwinsin04]

The Boston Herald called for him to resign, I believe.

[TigersEye]

Abortion is not about saving women’s lives!

Total Abortions since 1973

46,023,191

------------------------------------------------------------

Why the drop after 1960? (in deaths of women from illegal abortions)

The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicap (life of mother was legal in all states). There were two big exceptions — California in 1967, and New York in 1970 allowed abortion on demand. Now look at the chart carefully.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing

· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby

· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child

· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)

· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career

· 7.9% of women want no (more) children

· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health

2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So how many women’s lives have been saved by abortion?

Only about 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be “due to a risk to maternal health.” A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But let’s say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.

Abortion was legal in all 50 states prior to Roe v. Wade in cases of danger to the life of the woman.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

If the thermostat is set properly in the 'clinic', then Dick Turban isn't quite so concerned about how we 'interrogate' the unborn.

[gopwinsin04]

Those are some eye opening stats.

[gopwinsin04]

I can't believe Durbin voted for partial birth and then tried to sneak it in another way, unbelieveable.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Any member of congress, after hearing all the horror stories about partial birth abortion during the debate, who still supported partial birth abortion: they are capable of doing absolutely anything wicked, IMHO.

[JohnBovenmyer]

Sen. Durbin has given aid and comfort to our enemies

Then according to Section 3 of the 14th amendment he's no longer eligible to be in the Senate!

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

A simple motion to the chair referencing the rules should be sufficient. His Senate oath and the Constitutional requirement are givens. The only question is did he really give aid or comfort to our enemies. Granting that he did so on the floor of the Senate I trust that even the Senate can find the evidence. A vote of 50+Cheney should suffice for that finding of fact, then his seat should automatically become vacant. IIRC Sen. Harkin established the precedent that the Senate is the fact finding body for issues under its jurisdiction during Clinton's impeachment trial. Durbin won't find recruiting McCain and other RINOs so easy on this point. Issues of Senatorial immunities and the usual 2/3 vote for expulsion are superseded because this rule amended them! Now the amendment offers Durbin an out. He can get 2/3 of each House to vote that they want to keep him in spite of being a traitor. I'd love to see him try to run that past Tom DeLay.

[gopwinsin04]

Censure at least.

[TigersEye]

Yes they are. It especially impressed my when I first learned, about two years ago, that abortion to save the mother's life was legal in all 50 states before Roe v. Wade. I am 50 so I am old enough to have known what the law was. I didn't and that little fact adroitly escaped my mind for a long time. It has been all but buried by PP and cohorts.

[TigersEye]

Then according to Section 3 of the 14th amendment he's no longer eligible to be in the Senate!

That is correct. In a functioning government proceedings would begin immediately to impeach him and remove him from office. The same should have happened to Patty bin Murray. Fat Teddy too. Things are broke.

[JohnBovenmyer]

Censure alone is insufficient. What grounds can there be for censuring him other than "giving aid and comfort to the enemy?" I can't think anything that doesn't amount to that. But if you censure him (requires only a majority vote) on those grounds then the 14th amendment says he's out. It's just another way to reach my endpoint. The chair should rule that any subsequent efforts to rescue Durbin are out of order unless couched in the language of the 14th as a motion to "remove Durbin's disability." I trust some Democrats can be found in each House foolish enough to propose such. Give them as much time to debate it as they want. When the opposition is proposing mass suicide give them as much rope as they'll take! The GOP defense should be brief and to the point. We're not stealing a Senate seat. We expect the Governor of Illinois to appoint and the people of Illinois to elect in due time a replacement who will vote much the same as Durbin. Sen. Obama's recent landslide election offers no other conclusion. The people of Illinois can have a Senator with any views they wish, but the Constitution, specifically that pesky 14th amendment which has been the root of all Civil Rights laws, will not let them have a traitor as a Senator and the Senate has so judged Durbin. Unlike Mr. (NOT 'Senator!') Durbin, and apparently some of his friends, we honor our Congressional oaths and will not vote to let an unrepentant traitor into Congress during a war that has already threatened the very existence of that body.

[JohnBovenmyer]

Actually you can't "impeach" a Senator. That precedent was established shortly after the Senate expelled its first traitor c. 1800. The House wanted to pile on and use the impeachment clause's power to ban him from any future office. Although the Senate had been quick to expel him (with that Senate Durbin would have been gone by now!) they were already protective of their own power niche and ruled that the impeachment clause didn't apply to Senators. The traitor later went on to become Governor of Tennessee. Of course they didn't yet have the 14th amendment which thoughtfully bars those removed by it from holding any future office.