Posted on 06/18/2005 6:47:09 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Not if we don't continue to raise a fire storm with our Congressman and Senators. Editorial letters help too.
The Boston Herald called for him to resign, I believe.
------------------------------------------------------------
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 womens 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 lets 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.
If the thermostat is set properly in the 'clinic', then Dick Turban isn't quite so concerned about how we 'interrogate' the unborn.
Those are some eye opening stats.
I can't believe Durbin voted for partial birth and then tried to sneak it in another way, unbelieveable.
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.
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.
Censure at least.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.