[jazusamo]

Every high school student should be required to read what Reinhard has wriiten of partial birth abortion before graduating.

[expatguy]

"Dr. [Martin] Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms, everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. . . . The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp."

Sickening - How can a nation of selfish and cruel individuals justify this?

[varyouga]

IMO, ‘standard’ in-utero abortion is much more barbaric than the partial birth.

In a ‘standard’ abortion the baby is usually taken apart piece by piece by a vacuum or forceps with the head taken out last. This means that it is conscious longer and experiences much more pain.

This is a nightmare worse than Hitler’s gas chambers.

[GoBucks2002]

In Ginsburg's world, it is OK for the Court to use other countries' decisions based on other countries' Constitutions, but it is not OK for the Court to uphold legislation passed by its own Congress.

[Diago]

great article

[Klondike]

I had a discussion with a High School teacher who was very much for partial birth abortion. When I described to him what happens during the proceedure he accused me of making it all up. The next day he called me, very upset because he had checked to see if the information was correct and he wanted to apologize. (HUGE) Why, he wanted to know was this not more widely known? He was now very much opposed to this very cruel proceedure. He admitted to thinking that an abortion was a very clean neat and painless event. The baby just, poof, disappeared in a little cloud. Thank you Dave.

[Rocko]

People might conclude you have a pretty radical extreme notion of a woman's right to choose if they learn it includes near-infanticide.

"Near"?

[Vasilli22]

bump

[John Semmens]

Supreme Court Rules on Abortion Procedure

April 21, 2007

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Congress’ ban on a gruesome abortion procedure. The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed in 2003 is not prohibited by the Constitution. The opponents of the act “have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

Abortion rights groups claim that the partial birth abortion is sometimes the safest procedure for a woman. Dr. Kenneth Killborn, co-chair of Practicing American Physicians for Abortion (PAPA), defended the procedure. “If we were to do the dilation and extraction and pull the fetus out without crushing its skull there’s a chance it might live,” Killborn said. “Even if the woman were not required to take responsibility for the resulting child, she would still be burdened with the knowledge that she was a mother. This could be traumatic and damaging to her health. That’s why we must have a ‘health of the mother’ exception to any proposed limit to the right to an abortion.”

Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) complained about the Court’s ruling. “These judges aren’t doctors,” Gartner said. “They aren’t competent to overrule 30 years of Supreme Court precedents validating the medical necessity of this procedure.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was one of the four dissenting votes on the Court saying that the ruling “deviated from previous Supreme Court decisions” on abortion and “rides roughshod over ‘states rights’ by tolerating, indeed applauding, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper by the doctors performing it.”

In 2000, prior to the addition of Bush appointees John Roberts and Samuel Alito, the court struck down a state ban on partial-birth abortions. Writing for a 5-4 majority then, Justice Breyer said the law imposed an undue burden on a woman’s right to make an abortion decision. “Some women might prefer to have the fetus partially extracted before having it dismembered,” Breyer wrote. “They should not be forced to have it torn apart while fully inside the womb or have to bear the risk of a live birth. As Justice Blackmun wrote in the original Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, ‘a woman must not be forced to become a mother, she must be free to dispose of the tissues her body has created in any manner that seems most conducive to her well-being or personal preferences.’”

Eager to use the ruling to fuel her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) pounced on the news. “This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy,” Clinton asserted. “As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, there are penumbras and emanations from the Constitution that explicitly justify this medically essential procedure for ending late term pregnancies. 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. I promise that when I am president steps will be taken to neutralize the influence of these men and their ilk or I will have them replaced on the Court.”

read more...

http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm

[MHGinTN]

What kind of constitutional right depends on euphemisms and doublespeak for its survival? Maybe the kind that relied on penumbras and emanations for its creation. The subpreme court created something out of whole cloth to fit the demand of a special interest segment of society, without putting the right to the test of national vote. The result gave a right to kill alive, sensing, unborn humans in the ghoulish ways now used by the murderous bastards called 'doctors'.

The subpreme court recognizes the right of Congress to pass a law banning one of those ghoulish methods and the liberal dead souls on the current court see it as an assault on their power to create laws ... don't buy the crap Ruthie is peddling. Ginsberg cares not a whit for the alive unborn nor the females hiring the killers, she's all about the power of the subpreme court to create the social fabric leftists need to take over the country and set the moldy old Constitution aside. Ruth Ginsberg is a dead-soul leftist worshipped by the liberal elite because she is more than willing to create laws from the bench and maintain even the most heinous ones if it empowers liberalism, in contradiction to the separation of powers.