Court declines to review abortion law

AP ^ | 3/28/5 | HOPE YEN

[longtermmemmory]

agreed, instead of posing and whining we need to figure out how to work with what we have.

Restrictions are possible IF people are willing to stop and THINK about political reality.

[goldstategop]

Another triumph for the Culture Of Death. And some posters on another thread attacked me for being thoughtless when I commented we don't seem like a society that's in dread of death. We seem to welcome it with a gusto. Its plain as day we don't really revere human life. Any restrictions to protect its value are "unconstitututional." So now who is being cynical here? The masters of anti-life cynicism in our society are none other the the Justices who sit on our Blue State SCOTUS.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Diana in Wisconsin]

"So, yes, abortion is restricted. Except in any cases where a woman wants an abortion."

Oh. Well. That makes TOTAL sense then. Why would people be against that kind of legal ruling? /sarcasm

(Thanks.)

[sitetest]

Dear longtermmemmory,

Sorry, I don't believe any meaningful restrictions are possible under the current regime of judicial tyranny.

Even the president's ban of partial birth abortion hasn't passed muster with the jackbooted thugs in black robes, the American nazgul.

So, even preventing an abortionist from committing the murder of a child 80% outside of his mother violates a woman's "constitutional right" to procure the murder of her children, according to the nine mortal men doomed to die.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Diana in Wisconsin,

You're welcome.

"That makes TOTAL sense then."

It certainly does. If you love death.


sitetest

[goldstategop]

Why not just legalize murder? Let's drop the hypocrisy. After all the extremist Leftist wackos DO want the human race to become extinct. They should have the guts and the moral honesty to admit, yes - what we really do want is a society in which the disappearance of one more human being is not all that controversial. It won't even detract from the pre-occupation with our own selfishness and hedonism. This is the only life there is, if you're one of the lucky ones to keep it.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[agrace]

Because every pregnancy can be said to pose a risk to a woman's health. All she has to do is say she's suffering mental anguish and voila, abortion on demand.

That's why the Idaho statute in this case was legally challenged by Planned Parenthood - because it actually had the nerve to try to narrow the exception clause to only include actual health emergencies.

(And God forbid parents actually getting to know if their minor kids are having invasive surgery.)

That's also why the partial birth abortion laws are being struck down. As the article also states, the SCOTUS struck one down in 2000 because it failed to include a provision allowing exception for the mother's health.

Which brings us right back to the beginning. As long as PBA laws provide for such an exception, anyone can still have a PBA.

Never mind the fact that by their very nature, PBAs are never medically necessary or justifiable, but I digress.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

"PBAs are never medically necessary or justifiable, but I digress."

I agree with that. I didn't know how we got from "here" to "there" as far as the abortion laws went. Thanks.

[goldstategop]

Abortion may be necessary to save the life of the mother. But the Left doesn't see it as a necessary evil; it sees it as a form of social eugenics and with this interpretation our courts happily concur. And to go further, any one who says we're not living in a judicial tyranny is a blooming idiot!

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[sitetest]

Dear goldstategop,

Well, you have to look at how the hard left looks at law. To them, law is always about power. Whoever has enough power defines "right" and "wrong" as what benefits him. There is no objective right or wrong, no objective morality. "Justice" is an illusion. Law is about the rule of the strong.

Thus, for the hard left, their purpose has been to infiltrate institutions and achieve power, so that they might define right and wrong in the ways that benefit them most.

With abortion, as with Terri, we're seeing the marked progress toward the ability of those who have stolen power to kill whom they want.

And make us thank them for enforcing the rule of law while they do it.


sitetest

[agrace]

Agreed. I wish more people knew about the eugenics of PP's founder Margaret Sanger.

[Pete98]

Ah, the spectacle of liberals in a desperate panic that some baby, somewhere, will escape being aborted.

[sasafras]

I can hear Bush now in his darth vader type voice, "Well done evil masters, I will continue to put on the show, that I am a conservative Christian using the term compassion to fool them. We will soon crush the rebellion of Christians and honest Americans as I allow terrorists to enter our border while you my evil masters in black destroy their will to fight back"

[sasafras]

I would hope that the legislators tell the Supreme Court to go to hell, they have no power.

[Piquaboy]

What a surprise! Everyone should kiss their rings.

[international american]

Good tagline.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

So much for private, family matters.

[muawiyah]

It's going to feel really good when we drag these people before the revolutionary tribunals.

They are bringing it on themselves!

[muawiyah]

Didn't you read Roe v. Wade ~ it placed no limits whatsoever on abortion. In fact, they said it could be totally deprofessionalized and privatized if a state wished.

No one has tried that, but I'm pretty sure if they did few abortions would ever be performed in that state.

[Kuksool]

Last week, Far Left RATS in Congress preached about states' rights. Where are they protecting ID's parental consent law?