New rhetoric in SCOTUS abortion ruling (Ginsgerg: Stop calling a 2nd trimester "fetus" a "baby")

Associated Press ^ | 04/19/07 | PETE YOST

[wireman]

Ruth Ginsburg has a much better singing voice than Geddy Lee!

He may be a better bass player.

[Coleus]

.

[Badeye]

“Well, you got the miserable part right, I don’t know if she qualifies as a human being. Instead of protecting life she would rather quibble about the language used in the winning argument.”

Hmmm. Interesting, thats pretty much how your average sociopath thinks....

[Logophile]

"Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label `abortion doctor,'" wrote Ginsburg. "A fetus is described as an 'unborn child,' and as a 'baby;' second-trimester, previability abortions are referred to as 'late-term.'"

Euphemisms kill. Or at least they make killing easier. I hate euphemisms.

[The_Reader_David]

In no way disagreeing with your underlying point, one can kill tissue: physicians do so all the time, when removing diseased organs or parts of organs, or using lasers or freezing to destroy tumors.

It is precisely for this reason that the culture of death likes to call the fetus ‘tissue’—they can admit it’s alive, but deny that it’s a human being. This false analogy is the basis for all the sanitized language they apply to the murder of unborn children.

[MountainFlower]

THANKS, pres! Great read!!

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>Let W appoint two really controversial conservs<<

I hope so. Bush is running out of time. Due in great part to him, the dems have a very good chance of getting control of the legislative and executive branches, after which they could appoint more Ginsbergs, or even worse.

[IIntense]

...seems to imply there is a right/approved way of killing a fetus.

The words are clear. There's no doubt about what they mean.

This quote from Kennedy speaks volumes as to his view of abortion in general. My guess is that he knows d--n well he's talking about an unborn baby but couldn't bring himself to say so.

Possibly, Ginsberg's dissent is based on her political leanings.

Partial-birth abortion was ruled out by the Supreme Court, 5 to 4. Aside from what he said, she said, we who agree have reason to be grateful. Amen.

[Politicalmom]

DRAT!! You beat me to my Superman comment. :)

[Dr.Zoidberg]

So Ruth, abortion is all about terminology

Of course terminology is of paramount importance. The second they admit they are actually butchering a baby, they have to admit they are nothing better than blood thirsty murderers.

As long as they can sanitize the butchery with weasel words like Fetus and Choice, they are able to ignore the blood dripping from their hands.

You kill an unborn child, YOU ARE A MURDERER.

Plain and simple, a murderer, not one iota better than Ted Bundy or David Berkowitz.

[incredulous joe]

“Separated at birth?”

Yaaaah,....baby!

[IIntense]

...soul-less hags opinion...

I'm bewildered that the four Supreme Court dissenters could take the positions they did after listening to Judge Kennedy's graphic description of what actually occurs when performing a late-term abortion. What has happened to their consciences, their common sense, their ability to see the obvious?

The same can be asked about anyone who approves of such an atrocity!

[taxesareforever]

It makes me truly wonder what kind of a heart a judge has who rules on life and death issues but sees absolutely nothing wrong with killing a fetus. Animals are becoming the protected species of our society. As preposterous as it may seem I can see a day when the rights of animals may be incorporated into the Constitution.

[snowstorm12]

The ban does nothing but possibly kill women and the fetus will be aborted anyway because of a medical necessity. It is definately an anti-life ruling because the court basicly said they don’t care if it is deemed medically necessary by a medical professional, the doctor must use the more dangerous procedure. I would hope that doctors will protect their patient and defy the ban and use the procedure that’s safest. Pretty stupid ruling that defies common sense in my opinion.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

They are monsters. Drunk on the power of life and death.

And the only way they have of showing that power is by inflicting death on the most innocent and helpless.

And I don’t doubt there will come a time when animals are seen as having rights under the constitution, but just because some deranged black robed tyrant says something is there, doesn’t make it so.

"Emanations and penumbras"? SCOTUS weaselspeak for “Because we say so!”

[Dr.Zoidberg]

The ban does nothing but possibly kill women and the fetus will be aborted anyway because of a medical necessity.


* "The partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and physicians. Our panel could not find any identified circumstance in which the procedure was the only safe and effective abortion method." AMA President Daniel Johnson Jr., M.D., in New York Times, May 26, 1997.

* "According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D & X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about D & X." Report by Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association, May 1997.

* "A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure ... would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Statement of Policy, January 12, 1997.

* "I believe that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical advisers on what is fact and what is fiction in reference to late-term abortions. Because in no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described -- you know, partial birth, and then destruction of the unborn child before the head is born -- is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly can't be a medical necessity for the baby." Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop in American Medical News, August 19, 1996, p. 3.

* "I have very serious reservations about this procedure ... You really can't defend it. I'm not going to tell somebody else that they should not do this procedure. But I'm not going to do it ... I would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use." Abortionist Warren Hern in American Medical News, November 20, 1995, p. 3.

* "None of this risk is ever necessary for any reason. We and many other doctors across the U.S. regularly treat women whose unborn children suffer the same conditions as those cited by the women who appeared at Mr. Clinton's veto ceremony. Never is the partial-birth procedure necessary." Drs. Nancy Romer, Pamela Smith, Curtis Cook and Joseph DeCook of Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT) in Wall Street Journal, September 19, 1996, p. A 22.

I don't think so.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

The above came from here BTW.

http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/fact597.shtml

[taxesareforever]

"Emanations and penumbras"? SCOTUS weaselspeak for “Because we say so!”

Yep, and that is why we can expect to see many rulings made outside the realm of the Constitution.

[Albion Wilde]

“Separated at birth?” Yaaaah,....baby!

She's a man, baby, yeah!!