Replies

Don't you find it interesting that the whole discussion starts out with the admittance: "Most likely, there is no constitutional right to abortion funding.." and then the rest of the discussion is about how they can use a play on words, a few insider judges, and some bizarre concepts to MAKE it constitutional? This is what is wrong with America! This isn't their first such discussion, and you can be sure that they're not alone (Environmentalist, Anti-Christian Activist, "civil rights" groups, just to name a few). It makes me sick to think about it. I recently saw a story on the NAACP (i think) in which someone had uncovered a document that showed their influence over the courts and the law. I don't know all of the details and I may be miscaracturizing that - but - we need to have this seen. I think that if the media can spread this, it'll lessen their chances of success. Could you imagine? Taxpayers sending the Feds money to fund these maniacs?

As to the question of the man's responsibility: I think that they cover that question from a legal standpoint on the original website. It was something that basiclly amount to them concluding that the parasite (aka baby) doesn't have the same damage capabilities on the man, and therefore the man is left out of this situation. They'll attempt to make it where the baby can be considered a "parasite" that attacks the mother, or a baby, and it would be up to the mother to make the destinction. Sickos from hell.

Amen to your comments. If I have any consolation it's that these women are grasping at straws and they WILL lose. Over 30 million American women have had abortions and 75% of them regret it. THAT'S why the tide has been turning. The women who grieve over their aborted children will not be turned by the arcane legalities discussed in the article. They will also see through the euphemisms used.

I hope that some federal district judge of liberal persuasion tries NOW's argument. It will galvanize the rest of us to finally put a stop to the insanity.