Partial-birth abortion ban hits snag over Roe v. Wade affirmation

BP Press ^ | 7/21/03

[BenR2]

If Sen. Feinstein ever shows her face at one of those "Never Again" Holocaust Remembrance services, she should be confronted on why it is okay to continue this Holocaust against the Gentile unborn.

[BenR2]

Sorry, on that post, please change "Feinstein" to read "Boxer."

[Buffalo Bob]

These dipsticks seem totally unaware that they will one-day stand tall before the Lord our God and answer for their leadership and deeds in this matter.

[knuthom]

It also declares in its findings the method is neither safe for women nor necessary to preserve their health. It includes an exception to protect the mother's life.

This is ridiculous. It correctly states that PBA is NOT necessary to preserve the mother's health and then includes an exception anyway. The exception is not necessary. No woman ever died because she couldn't get a partial-birth abortion.

[muawiyah]

Nope. Boxer and Feinstein will never make it to stand before the Lord. They are already irrevocably doomed to outer darkness and eternal damnation. No sense wasting His time with them.

[Zack Nguyen]

Hey there. Though they certainly behave like the heathen now, you just never know...God often shocks the world by saving those the rest of us have written off.

The pro-abortion Dems are grasping at straws. This bill WILL pass. It WILL be signed into law. Imagine if they succeeded in killing it. Pro-lifers would come out of the woodwork and crawl over broken glass to proudly cast their vote for Bush next year.

[LiteKeeper]

Sens. Barbara Boxer, D.-Calif., and Tom Harkin, D.-Iowa

Can we get an indictment here for accessory to commit murder?

[StopGlobalWhining]

Please see this review of Planned Parenthood and it's distinguished founder, Margaret Sanger, namesake of the annual Sanger Award.

Margaret Sanger's Eugenics

[cpforlife.org]

Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[nickcarraway]

For crying out loud

[cpforlife.org]

Thousands of children are brutally murdered every year using the method known as Partial Birth Abortion. Virtually all are healthy children and many are mature enough to survive if born. Yet in this land of the free and home of the brave we elect people who think this SATANIC BRUTALITY is a protected right.

We are a sick people. Hitler and his group would be proud--but they would never have believed this could happen here.

These color illustrations (above) of a partial-birth abortion were prepared on the basis of an instructional paper by an Ohio abortionist, explaining step by step how he performs the procedure. These drawings accurately depict a partial-birth abortion being performed on a baby at 24 weeks gestational age. Most partial-birth abortions are performed in the 20-26 week range (the fifth and sixth months), and some are performed even later.

The Pain of Partial-Birth Abortion

During the first year after the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was introduced in mid-1995, many opponents of the bill, such as NARAL's Kate Michelman and syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, insisted that anesthesia given to the mother painlessly kills the babies before they are pulled feet-first from the womb and stabbed through the back of the skull. But in congressional testimony in 1996 -- virtually ignored by the news media -- this myth was emphatically refuted by the heads of the two major professional societies of anesthesiologists. Other experts testified that the babies are alive and fully capable of experiencing great pain during a partial-birth abortion. To learn more about the pain that partial-birth abortion inflicts on pre-mature human babies, and about the "anesthesia myth,"

Go to http://nrlc.org/abortion/pba/index.html for the latest.

In his book, "Notes on the State of Virginia," Jefferson said, writing as a lifelong slave owner,

"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."

Imagine what Jefferson would say today, in this ever darkening culture of death.

[Jim Noble]

she should be confronted on why it is okay to continue this Holocaust against the Gentile unborn.

I didn't know it was illegal for Jews to have abortions.

[BenR2]

I didn't know it was illegal for Jews to have abortions.

/////
It isn't; some Jews have abortions, of course.

In the same manner, Hitler killed many Gentiles, but his chief victim group was the Jewish population. Today, although some Jewish babies are, of course, (tragically) aborted, the chief victim groups are Gentiles -- particularly blacks and Hispanics in terms of proportionality.

Today, abortion is a Gentile holocaust -- supported by our disproportionately Jewish Senate.

Let's not sugarcoat.

[Aquinasfan]

That resolution, offered by Harkin, expressed the Senate's belief that Roe v. Wade "was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right,"

The "right to infanticide" which is found in article... um... I mean the penumbra of... uh... something or other. Whatever. Let's just agree to kill the babies, OK?

[MHGinTN]

It is well past time to agree to disagree and thus allow tacit approval of infanticide. This nation is in the process of being judge and found severely wanting ... and the vast majority have no inkling of their judgement now temporarily suspended. If the Boxers and Harkins of our elected bodies are successful, it will be as hocndoc satted when the Harkin 'non-binding addition was allowed to be added, 'Infanticide will be codified into law of the land as issuing now from the Congress not just the philosopher kings in black robes. [Tell me again, what happened to the worshippers of Molech? ... What was Almighty God's judgement against them? ... It is time to stop being cordial to the proponents of child slaughter, but the vast majority of Americans will shake their heads and mumble 'I'm not involved in that so I'm not injecting my opinion.']

[Aquinasfan]

... and the vast majority have no inkling of their judgement now temporarily suspended.

Yup. Like Sodom and Gomorrah.

[cpforlife.org]

More details:

http://www.lifenews.com/nat49.html

Pro-Abortion Senators Stall Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

by Jill Boughton
LifeNews.com Staff Writer
July 21, 2003

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Both houses of Congress have finally passed legislation banning partial-birth abortion, a procedure so gruesome and unnecessary it is opposed by a large majority of Americans, even those who tend to value "choice" above life.

Unlike his predecessor, who swiftly vetoed it each time it reached his desk, President Bush has stated that passing this legislation is a priority for him. Why then is the bill still languishing, nearly three years after Republicans took control of the White House and Capitol Hill?

The simple answer is that a small number of pro-abortion Senators have pleased their well-heeled constituency by employing one delaying tactic after another.

In the Senate, pro-abortion Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) tacked on an amendment to the bill that put the Senate on record as supporting Roe vs. Wade. Because there was no such language in the House version, it has to go to a conference committee.

That committee should succeed in striking the pro-abortion amendment -- as soon as it is able to get to work.

Near the end of June, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist put forth a motion to appoint Senators to the conference committee; Senate Democrats objected, taking two weeks to specify their objection. Finally Senators Harkin and Boxer (D-CA) put forward a motion to "instruct" conferees to keep his amendment. Boxer admitted in an interview with Roll Call magazine, "If we keep Roe in, we might be able to stop this bill." However, a majority vote on such an "instruction" is not binding on the conferees.

"The current bottleneck is with the appointment of conferees, but the whole business shows that Senator Daschle is writing an entire new book on obstructionist tactics," according to Michael Schwartz, legislative director for Concerned Women for America.

When the conference committee is appointed, pro-life conferees expect to be able to restore a "clean" ban, without the Harkin amendment. However, the conference report will have to be approved by both the Senate and the House, providing yet another opportunity for debate and delay. A spokesman for Harkin said he may end up filibustering the conference report.

Since 65 Senators are already on record in favor of the bill, the outcome is assured, but it will likely have to wait until representatives return from their summer recess, which begins at the end of this week.

President Bush will sign the ban once it reaches his desk, but three pro-abortion groups are coordinating efforts to challenge the it in federal courts.

"Lawyers from the three groups could file lawsuits challenging the measure 'within hours' of the law's enactment, said Priscilla Smith, who will be the lead attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights' challenge."

Quite likely, one or more of these federal judges will prevent enforcement of the law until the issue is resolved. Litigation is likely to be lengthy, and the losing side will certainly appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.

Since the Supreme Court already ruled 5-4 against Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortions, does this legislation stand a chance of passing judicial muster? We can always hope for a change in the composition of the Supreme Court in the interim, but it's easy to be pessimistic, observing the way Senator Daschle has used filibusters and other tactics to prevent the appointment of judges to lower courts who have the slightest suspicion of being pro-life.

However, this bill is different from Nebraska's in three ways:

It more carefully and clearly defines the exact procedure that is prohibited, making it more difficult for opponents to argue that Congress is attempting to ban a broad right guaranteed by the Constitution (or a retrospective 1973 reading of the Constitution).

It contains a lengthy section of "findings" refuting specious claims the Supreme Court put forth in its 2000 decision. These findings showing conclusively that partial-birth abortion is never, under any conceivable circumstances, necessary to protect the health of the mother.

Because it was passed by the U.S. Congress rather than a state legislature, it is subject to a higher standard of review. This means those who would reject the law have a greater burden of proof than they had in overturning a state law.

In the meantime, pro-lifers in Virginia, Michigan and Missouri are trying to craft laws that identify partial-birth abortion as illegal infanticide. It remains to be seen whether the courts will uphold such laws.

[Coleus]

I'm getting confused, didn't both houses in Congress pass this legislation already and is now waiting for the president to sign it?

Why didn't the presidend sign this into law already?

[Coleus]

U.S. HOUSE JOINS SENATE IN APPROVING BAN ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION, SUPPORTED BY 70% OF PUBLIC -- BUT WILL FIVE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES AGREE?

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/HouseapprovesPBAban.html