BTW, Dr. Dobson had the advance copy of the ad
with a request to meet so that we wouldn’t need to
run it. Sadly, he declined.
I agree that PBA is a rare, if it happens at all, procedure. The reason I liked the ruling is not that it stops abortions, but it shows that this court could be receptive to rulings in favor of pro-lifers. I have always been bothered by the fact that PBA suddenly appeared on the political scene by the National Right to Life, just a few years ago, and it has given cover to pro-abortion politicians who want to portray themselves as “pro-life” because they are against this one procedure. Rudy Giuliani comes to mind. This ruling, sadly, actually doesn’t stop abortions, but by the panic on the left, it must mean something legally.
Vanity of vanity. Envy, Satan’s favorite sin. You folks have really advanced the cause (sic).
It’s sad that folks can’t see past the political fig leaves and understand that too many of their leaders are actually naked as a jay bird.
Alan Keyes:
“I cannot join in, or even understand, the approbation which others have expressed for this decision. It is in fact an abominable affirmation of the Court’s unconstitutional decisions in Roe and Casey. With grotesquely meticulous care, the man whose pivotal vote preserved so-called abortion rights in the Casey decision (Justice Kennedy) carves out an exception intended to prove and strengthen the rules set forth in Roe and Casey.
As my good friend Judie Brown put it recently (at a Colorado Right To Life dinner in Denver), Kennedy played the part of a skillful gardener, cutting back the evil planted by Roe/Casey in order to strengthen and extend its roots, hoping no doubt to make it harder to overturn in any subsequent ruling. While allowing for a state interest in restricting one brutal way of murdering the nascent child, he makes it clear that this restriction is tolerable under Roe/Casey only because abortionists still have access to other equally brutal modes of killing.
At one point, with what seems like dogged satisfaction, Kennedy describes such an alternative in almost clinical detail, no doubt because he knows that in doing so he implicates all the justices who join his reasoning in explicit support for the right to use this alternative to kill the child, even though it is just as horrendous as the one restricted by the “partial birth” legislation.”