Skip to comments.
Louisiana Becomes First State to Ban Late-Term Abortions
FoxNews ^
| July 13th, 2007
| AP
Posted on 07/14/2007 4:40:58 PM PDT by shield
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
1
posted on
07/14/2007 4:40:59 PM PDT
by
shield
To: shield
The ACLU will take care of this despicable situation. /S
2
posted on
07/14/2007 4:44:53 PM PDT
by
doc1019
(Fred Thompson '08)
To: shield
The new law allows so-called "partial birth" Hmmm, wonder why they never say the so-called 'global warming'. Even Fox goes along with the left-wing spin.
To: shield
Unlike in many developed countries, where abortion is considered a medical procedure beyond the reach of politics, it remains among the most politically sensitive subjects in the United StatesThe story somehow avoids telling us that procedures of this type are already banned in many of these "developed countries."
Most European countries, for instance, are much more restrictive of abortion than the US is.
In France, for instance, the abortion ratio (abortions per 1000 live births) is 275. In the US it's 341.
4
posted on
07/14/2007 4:53:45 PM PDT
by
Sherman Logan
(It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.)
To: Sherman Logan
Sorry, US abortion ratio is 314, not 341. My keyboard has a hole in it.
5
posted on
07/14/2007 4:55:04 PM PDT
by
Sherman Logan
(It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.)
To: Sherman Logan
And I don’t want to know why!
6
posted on
07/14/2007 4:58:13 PM PDT
by
TxCopper
To: wagglebee; Salvation; NYer; CajunConservative; JulieRNR21; EternalVigilance; AzaleaCity5691; ...
The public is slowly turning against Roe vs. Wade.
7
posted on
07/14/2007 5:47:34 PM PDT
by
Clintonfatigued
(Open borders and outsourcing are opposite sides of the same coin)
To: shield
Thank God, and Louisiana!
To: shield
Odd that its referred to as the 'First State' to ban such a crime.
Before 1973, it was a crime in all 50 states.
9
posted on
07/14/2007 6:56:02 PM PDT
by
Regulator
To: Regulator
Typical loon media...besides, if it’d been any other state but Louisiana wonder if we’d even see this news.
10
posted on
07/14/2007 7:01:24 PM PDT
by
shield
(A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
To: shield
Silly question: why was this necessary? There is already a federal law that was just successfully defended in the SCOTUS. Isn’t this redundant?
To: shield
“The statute is parallel to a federal ban that President George W. Bush signed into law in 2003, which was upheld in April by the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Question- If there is federal law against it then why do we need state laws?
12
posted on
07/14/2007 8:24:54 PM PDT
by
Revel
To: Revel; Western Civ 4ever
Exactly, my thoughts.
However, isn't there a doc in Kansas that has continued with partial birth abortions?
13
posted on
07/14/2007 8:28:42 PM PDT
by
shield
(A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
To: shield; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; ...
14
posted on
07/14/2007 10:07:20 PM PDT
by
Coleus
(Pro Deo et Patria)
To: All
15
posted on
07/14/2007 11:01:13 PM PDT
by
Sun
(Duncan Hunter pro-life/borders, understands Red China threat! http://www.gohunter08.com/Home.aspx)
To: shield
Tiller the Killer ... serial killer protected by the governor of the state.
16
posted on
07/14/2007 11:09:22 PM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(You've had life support. Promote life support for those in the womb.)
To: Revel
It my understanding that unless it is in the U.S. Constitution, federal law covers federal ‘estates’, reservations, military complexes, etc. A state may write a law which can be challenged for review of possible contradiction to the Constitution. Hence, when a ruling comes down that upholds a state law, it effects immediately only that state which had the review, and stops challenge to other states’ similar laws.
17
posted on
07/14/2007 11:12:38 PM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(You've had life support. Promote life support for those in the womb.)
To: Freedom'sWorthIt
Finally, something coming out of LA that I can be proud of. (orig. from LA)
18
posted on
07/14/2007 11:16:18 PM PDT
by
spotbust1
(Procrastinators of the world unite . . . . .tomorrow!!!)
To: MHGinTN
Yes, I understand that. Wasn’t there a recent ruling that’s set him up for a world of hurt? Multi docs signing off on that procedure...life and death situation for Mom. He’s not been doing that....isn’t it now out of state hands?
19
posted on
07/14/2007 11:18:22 PM PDT
by
shield
(A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
To: spotbust1
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson