Posted on 03/10/2003 4:16:02 PM PST by VRWC_minion
I was surprised to see debate occuring on senate floor regarding partial birth abortion.
What was sad was to listen to a Republican New England Senator support this misdirection ploy that so clearly makes toothless a halt to this evil method for killing babies!
It borders on demonic complicity to present a ruse alternative so clearly designed to continue the shedding of innocent blood in the name of 'empowering women', for democrat votes.
Senator Santorum shredded the faulty reasoning, exposing the paradoxical assertion by Durbin and Boxer that Murray's bill or Durbin's bill were presented as a means to protect women's health and wellbeing. Thank God for men like Dewine and Santorum standing up to at least begin taking back the horrific slope of abortion on demand and this particular slaughter method.
There was a beautiful presentation by Senator Michael Enzi, in which he told the true story of his daughter born very prematurely (at six months gestational age) more than thirty years ago. He told in tearful (for me and it appeared for him also) wonder the story of his daughters struggle for survival. The moving tribute to his tiny daughter's struggle and success (she's now a teacher!) gave graphic weight to the nearly inspoken issue in all of this, that these tiny babies now being slaughtered with partial birth infanticide are living, individual human beings. His daughter survived so many years ago, and presently our medical wonders so much more able to overcome the immense battles she faced and overcame made a stark contrast to the inveigling slime of the democrat arguments.
To kill these little ones when they are viable to live beyond the uterus exposes the democrat defense of the indefensible. But Durbin, Boxer, Murray, Lautenberg, Harkin, et al, continue to try and obfuscate the truth and misdirect attention to specious ploys they so craftily raise. Despicable is all that I could think after listening to Senator Enzi's story then hearing Durbin spin and dissemble, in his efforts to use the death of innocent babies as a means for democrat political gain.
The democrats who will vote against this ban (on a hideous killing method) have lost their souls and are worthy only for contempt. May God have mercy on them ... I cannot abide them any longer.
The democrats who will vote against this ban (on a hideous killing method) have lost their souls and are worthy only for contempt. May God have mercy on them ... I cannot abide them any longer.
You're absolutely right.
Essentially (I'm sorry, but I am quite tired), the democrats are seeking to nullify this challenge to the absolute right to choose any killing method for dealing with the unborn. Of course, all under the specious guise of addressing protection for women's right to choose for their health reasons. No matter how much evidentiary material is put forward to expose the lies in this regard, the democrat press ever onward, I suspect, in an effort to mollify the radical constituencies demanding an all-out effort to stop this 'perceived' threat to Roe v Wade. Of course, even this specious assertion by Boxer was crushed into the lying muck of which it was composed; Dr. Frist explained how this 'procedure' is NEVER a medical necessity, never an emergency methodology since it requires two to three days to accomplish as practiced by the current crop of serial killing general practitioners, and the bill seeks to ban only the precise method of killing, defined in exquisite detail and therefore strictly limited to that procedure alone.
There will, I suspect, be more of the same misdirection and dissembling offered on Wednesday, with perhaps as many as three or more alternative suggested legislations that will seek to do the same nullification intended by the first two. The final vote count will be of extreme import for the 2004 election cycle. It is a start at restricting the holocaust, a very meager start.
Yes, drug laws, abortion laws, clone laws, day care laws, seat belt laws, health care laws, all kinds of unConstitutional laws. Why?
Consider that back in the Wilson administration, at least they knew they had to amend the Constitution (income tax, prohibition) to expand the short list of federal powers . Then came FDR. At first the Supreme Court tossed out his bizarre legislation. But after his famous "court packing" episode, they caved and accepted everything. Now, as a legacy of those times, we nave NO Constitutional limitations on federal power. Well, the courts still recognized the Bill of Rights (sometimes), but it never occurs to them that there were only a very few powers which were given to Congress.
My point exactly. If Roe is overturned, the several states will have the power to adjudicate abortion laws as each sees fit.
Have a great day!
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.