Posted on 04/18/2007 6:14:06 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
Washington, DC -- "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."
Her colors couldn’t be more clearly displayed!
"this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women [babies] must be taken into account."
It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.”
Constitutional right to kill a baby. I still can’t find the reference in my copy of the Constitution !!!
Since when has this anti-American, anti-Military, anti-Constitutional Marxist witch EVER cared about anyone’s Constitutional rights on ANY issue?? More gross hypocrisy from this professional liar. At the same time, I am not sure what specific Constitutional right she is referring to...and the faux reality of the sick liberal mind does not either...
When the mental health of the mother requires her to run the streets til 2am (i.e. It's FUN) and she realizes too late that a baby will cramp her style.
Or, her ploy to net that hunk into some sort of matrimony falls through and the last thing she needs now is a kid. That would be upsetting and hence a threat to her mental health.
I would like to see statistics on just exactly how many women per year actually go through this procedure because their life is in danger.
Like when Limbaugh starts talking about military things, the libs always say he has no right to speak on the subject because he has never been in the military.
So, unless Hitlery has had an abortion, she has no right to speak on the subject. Same would go for any male.
What do you expect from someone carrying a “snuke”
Mrs. Bill Clinton has no right to speak of the military since she was never in it. I also recall her husband is a draft dodger.
You won’t.. A c-section is easier on the mother.
Now wait a minute. Since a c-section is easier, logic dictates that the number of partial birth abortions needed per year to save the mothers life must be extremely small, or non-existent.
There are stats out there. They just have to be found.
The reason I asked in the first place was this: If memory serves, I remember hearing a couple years ago somewhere that there had not been a partial birth abortion performed, to save the mothers life, in years.
Somewhere there are stats that can show that partial birth abortions are unnecessary in this day and age and this huge uproar is pure, unadulterated, disgusting, immoral politics.
If a woman has an abortion, is she still called a mother? If she is a mother, then is the aborted fetus a baby? Just curious how all this works.
Good point! They don't want to concede that the baby is a baby - it is an "unviable tissue mass" or some other legal-speak - but then they talk of the mother!
If she's a mother, it must be a baby they are killing!
During a C-section there is more control of the factors that can adversely impact the mother. The solution for high risk is c-section not partial birth. You need induced or natural labor to dilate enough to perform a perform a partial.
Fully Agree!
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.