Chuck Baldwin Asks Christians, "Is President Bush Really One of Us?"

Chuck Baldwin Ministries ^ | 10-24-03 | Baldwin, Chuck

[Luis Gonzalez]

So, is this reason enough to call the PBA a failure then?

[Luis Gonzalez]

I meant to say PBA legislation

[MHGinTN]

No, I would say it is a major step in the right direction.

[Theodore R.]

So does this mean that the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" is really just a political hoax designed to quieten right-to-lifers? "Doctors" can merely continue the practice by altering their procedures????

[LADYAK]

Thats right which one of the nine democrats is going to stand up against partial birth abortion? Granted I don't agree with those statements on Islam and I certainly wouldn't agree on the subject of Mormon's or JW's but this country is based on liberty and justice for all.

I still believe that he was the president for the hour....and will continue to stand by him this next go around...we do have to have some kind of future to offer to the next generation.

I saw the other day which I had never wondered why Howard DEan's wife doesn't go with him. Anyone ever seen her? Heard that she isn't interested in politics and has her own private office (medical) and she has no intention of being a first lady or moving into the White House. Just wonder how private she really thinks that she will be if he is elected.

[MHGinTN]

It is not a hoax else the demon democrats would have passed it under sinkEmperor, but it was vetoed twice by the deviant. This ia clear message that the abortionist serial killers are killing ALIVE prenatal human beings using a most heinous emthod. The awakening of the people is what must preced the radical alteration of the evil done by the activist societal engineering judges in 1973 and subsequently. Just look at what O'Connor opined in Stenberg v Carhardt; O'Connor agreed with the Nebraska designation that partial birth abortion may be prosecuted as a homicide, but commanded that the state insewrt the right to such a killing of an alive baby 'for the health of the mother'. Think about the profound contradictions within that syllogistic flow, then you will see the irrational putrifaction the courts and judges must maintain in order to protect this evil 'right' of a woman to hire a serial kioller to slaughter her alive, unborn child! THAT kind of putrid reality must be defeated in incriments, incriments designed to awaken the people of 'We The People' to the wrongness that has overtaken this nation. If the people do not awaken and demand change, the slippery funneled slope will consume their nation, and the people will be complicit in their own destruction because of their disconnect form their own governance.

That which works to awaken We The People is not a designed hoax, but a last chance to escape the evil overtaking us.

[Dahlseide]

The claim is a PBA ban. PBA is defined in the bill as the childs head completely out of the "lady". Under this ban a "lady" can legally stick a scissors into the infants head at any point prior to the poor infants head being completely out of the "lady". Please do not call this a ban on PBA. It does not even qualify as a sop.

As for an incremental approach I do not have words strong enough to express my contempt. The legislator must, if it has the will, rein in the SCOTUS one way or another. Maybe by beginning with the Constitutional dictate of three coequal branches and the proper role of judges to interpret not make law by incremental means. Incremental means are what George Washington warned us about when he stated “…precedents are dangerous things, let the reins of government be held by a steady hand, and every violation be apprehended, if defective let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence."

The seed that grew into the overthrow of the Constitution was planted by Marshall in Marbury v Madison when the other branches, & citizens, allowed him to rule that the SCOTUS was the final adjudicator of the Constitutionality of law. Not so bad so long as the SCOTUS ruled by the clear meaning of the Congress. But things started to go to hell in a hand-basket as soon as the Constitution was interpreted as “living”. That, coupled with ignoring Washington’s warning about precedent, which in turn was coupled with “words mean what I choose them to mean” has resulted in the disaster upon us.

To claim this bill is a ban on PBA is utter nonsense.

Your turn.

[MHGinTN]

If you are going to pretend to be offering the definiton as written in the ban, at least make an effort to copy the entire definition, not just the portion regarding the head-first delivery ... the bill also addresses the feet-first delivery. Nice try though, ghoul.

[Dahlseide]

I hardly thought it necessary. Actually I did briefly consider including the other half but thought that would be nit picking as the point is made by what I did state. I am not picking a fight with you or anyone, I am picking a fight with the idea that this bill is a ban on PBA.

It is a bill any pro-abort could sign and "have it both ways".

[MHGinTN]

There is an ambiguity in the following sentence I posted. Allow me to clarify ... "Nice try though, ghoul" refers to any serial killer unwise enough tto try and slip past the law some twist on the partial birth abortion procedure being used prior to the ban passing and being signed into law by the President. The ambiguity left it sounding like I was referring to the poster to whom my post was addressed.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"PBA is defined in the bill as the childs head completely out of the "lady"."

Please provide the legal definition of a partial birth abortion prior to this bill's passing.

Here's a hint...there wasn't one.

The bill bans the current method of performing partial birth abortions, but as Marvin says, killers will find ways to kill. The bill however brings their killing under scrutiny, they can be monitored, questioned, and even challenged under the law; many physicians will wish to avoid the challenges and scrutiny, and simply quit performing PBAs.

To sit there like you do and take the attitude that this was a defeat is ridiculous, and ignorant, wars are never won in a single battle, but rather in a series of battles, and just because one battle does not bring about absolute victory, it does not mean that it was a defeat.

The Congress has passed a bill making the current method for performing partial birth abortions illegal, if a different method of performing a partial birth abortion is created, then the next battle is to expand the definition in the bill. You should join the battle rather than taking the position of being a naysayer standing on the sidelines.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The seed that grew into the overthrow of the Constitution was planted by Marshall in Marbury v Madison when the other branches, & citizens, allowed him to rule that the SCOTUS was the final adjudicator of the Constitutionality of law. Not so bad so long as the SCOTUS ruled by the clear meaning of the Congress."

Now, there's a perfect example of utter nonsense.

You advocate tyranny by unchallenged Congressional decree.

In your interpretation of the constitutional concept of three equal branches of government, the Judicial branch is subservient to the Legislative, and by extent, the Executive branch would then become Congress's deaf, dumb, and blind enforcer, for if the Judicial branch lacks the power to challenge Congressional decrees, the Executive would likewise be powerless to veto.

Nonsense.

[Dahlseide]

Dahlseide in part:

"The seed that grew into the overthrow of the Constitution was planted by Marshall in Marbury v Madison when the other branches, & citizens, allowed him to rule that the SCOTUS was the final adjudicator of the Constitutionality of law. Not so bad so long as the SCOTUS ruled by the clear meaning of the Congress."

Luis in reply: Now, there's a perfect example of utter nonsense.

Dahlseide: I assume your rational follows, you think it's nonsense I do not

Luis: You advocate tyranny by unchallenged Congressional decree.

Dahlseide: How so?

Luis: In your interpretation of the constitutional concept of three equal branches of government, the Judicial branch is subservient to the Legislative, and by extent, the Executive branch would then become Congress's deaf, dumb, and blind enforcer, for if the Judicial branch lacks the power to challenge Congressional decrees, the Executive would likewise be powerless to veto.

Dahlseide: I fail to understand how you could interpret my reference to coequal could mean that I mean the other two are, in your words, subservient. All three branches are to be subservient to the Constitution; no branch is to be subservient to another branch. Please don't put words in my mouth. Each branch is duty bound, at least in principle if not in fact, to uphold the Constitution. As it now stands two branches are, in many respects, subservient to the federal judicial.

Marshall, in Marbury v Madison, is purported to have said "It is most emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is".

Now a few years later we have the right to abortion cloaked in the penumbra of the Constitution. All of this, IMHO even though I don't feel humble on this subject, due to not following Washington's warning about precedent.

Luis: Nonsense.

Dahlseide:I doubt if I've changed any minds, but I have learned that we both can spell nonsense.

[Valin]

but I have been furious about his taking the side of Muslims (you know, the religion of the killers who brutally murdered over 3000 on U.S. soil on 9/11).

You're right! How dare he take the side of the 90% of the worlds Muslims that don't hate us, and aren't radicals fundamentalists!

[Nataku X]

Read #74, the bill covers the "traditional" pull-baby's-feet-out-first method as well... certainly, there are other reasons to say that Bush isn't doing all that he can as a Christian, but this isn't one of them.

The portion specifying the method we all know about, where the abortionist pulls the baby's feet out, is banned as well. Whoever left out the rest of the language in MississipiMan's excerpt, within the ellipses, is intellectually dishonest. PBA is indeed banned now... onto the other methods! Regards NX

[Nataku X]

More specifically: "...the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus;..."

[MississippiMan]

The portion specifying the method we all know about, where the abortionist pulls the baby's feet out, is banned as well. Whoever left out the rest of the language in MississipiMan's excerpt, within the ellipses, is intellectually dishonest.

Absolutely not. Two things are discussed, a traditional head-first delivery and a breech delivery. The former is what's under discussion here, and the bill ONLY bans the procedure when the ENTIRE head is exposed. The abortionist can easily change his procedure and perfectly circumvent the ban, period. Again, a real ban would not have given these narrow, easily circumvented definitions that are useless. A real ban would have said "any portion of the fetal head" instead of "the entire fetal head."

This bill will NOT stop PBA.

MM

[Dahlseide]

What will they call PBA when an abortionist sticks a scissors into a babies skull 1/2 way out? Any pro-abort could vote for that sham & have it both ways.

[MississippiMan]

What will they call PBA when an abortionist sticks a scissors into a babies skull 1/2 way out? Any pro-abort could vote for that sham & have it both ways.

Bingo.

MM