Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 10/02/2006 12:41:03 PM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: SmithL

Proposed legislation called "assault" but killing babies is not?


2 posted on 10/02/2006 12:42:52 PM PDT by sappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

It's always puzzled me why non-breeders are so concerned with reproduction or non-reproduction in their case supporting abortion.?


4 posted on 10/02/2006 12:50:29 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL
That leaves the other 20 percent of pregnant minors, or the less-than-ideal scenario. These are the most vulnerable girls, the girls who tend to come from family situations that are unhealthy, unaccepting or violent.

First, is there any support for that 80/20 thing?

Second, in the scenarios where the children don't go to the parents, if there's a screw up and she has to go to the emergency room, is the group that's fighting this proposition going to foot the bill at the hospital, or are they going to ask the parents to foot the bill - parent's who are not going to have a say in the activity that created the problem?

Shalom.

5 posted on 10/02/2006 12:52:44 PM PDT by ArGee (The Ring must not be allowed to fall into Hillary's hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL
This article is just so full of political rhetoric. In one sentence they sound as if they are sympathetic to the idea of notification. In the next, they spew massive lies about 'young ladies' privacy. Then those sentences lead directly to calling these 'young ladies' minors instead. Then they come from left field once again voicing one of their true evil, political fears of whose privacy will really be violated when they say:

Clearly, this provision holds great potential for anti-abortion zealots to use these statistics to intimidate judges [GOP Poet's emphasis] with the threat of public shame and negative campaigning.

May I also mention they don't use the word choice anymore, but right to privacy. They don't care about the 'minors' or as they call these pregnant minors 'young ladies'-HMMMMM. They only care not to be outflanked and also only about the judges. Because they know those pro-abortion judges are the only reason such wide-spread ability to abort a child at a drop of a hat by anyone exists.

7 posted on 10/02/2006 12:56:19 PM PDT by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

Commence the assault! Yes on 85.


8 posted on 10/02/2006 12:57:54 PM PDT by UncleDick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

So involving parental consent is O.K., as long as we can be sure that the parents will consent. But if the parents won't consent, the right to abortion overrides the right to be a parent to your child?


9 posted on 10/02/2006 1:02:21 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

girl having abortion is ok.

girl having an aspirin requies three seperate forms filled out in triplicate with a court order from 5 supreme court justices and a two week legal newspaper public notice ad.


10 posted on 10/02/2006 1:11:03 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL
Speaking of endorsements, our local paper in Sonoma County, The Press Democrat, endorsed Arnold for Governor. The paper is owned by the NY Times and is very liberal. It will be interesting to see if other liberal papers endorse Arnold. I guess pigs do fly.
14 posted on 10/02/2006 1:43:04 PM PDT by Uncle Hal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

Great. Your daughter can't get a tooth drilled without your consent, but she can get an abortion without your knowledge?


16 posted on 10/02/2006 2:27:15 PM PDT by 13Sisters76 ("It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. " Thos. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL
the measure's objectionable language -- a phrase that sought to embed wording into the state Constitution that abortion is the "death of an unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born," which critics rightly argued could be a set-up for litigation to outlaw abortion -

Objectionable? Try, FACTUAL.

17 posted on 10/02/2006 2:38:02 PM PDT by cgk (I don't see myself as a conservative. I see myself as a religious, right-wing, wacko extremist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL; 4lifeandliberty; AbsoluteGrace; afraidfortherepublic; Alamo-Girl; anniegetyourgun; ...

Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping!

Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...

18 posted on 10/02/2006 2:38:51 PM PDT by cgk (I don't see myself as a conservative. I see myself as a religious, right-wing, wacko extremist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL
BTW, any guess as to the percentage of these minors that are pregnant by predatory adult males? How many cases of blatant child sexual abuse are being covered up and abetted by the abortion industry? Does any one seriously think that number is zero? How many cases are *acceptable* to the opponents of this proposition?

Parental/Judicial notification would help uncover and stop at least some of those cases.

19 posted on 10/02/2006 3:39:16 PM PDT by azemt (Where are we going, and why are we in this basket?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson