PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN - THE BETRAYAL IS NOW COMPLETE [BARF ALERT - ANTI-GOP PROPAGANDA]

NewsWithViews.com ^ | May 9, 2003 | By David Brownlow

[Mo1]

I'm with Registered .. I prefer post #85

With that said, I can understand your concerns. Is it possible for the libs to find another way to kill babies? .. yes it is and that is why we have to continue to fight for the lives of all these innocent babies

[Matchett-PI]

"From what I've seen democrats will just do it faster than republicans. I'm tired of this threat. I bought into it for years. I see a bigger and more abusive government that ever before, and at least an equal share of that done at the hands of republicans. Sell it somewhere else."

Only the naive think that politics isn't the art of the possible.

One doesn't have to sell any facts of life to emotionally mature mentalities capable of calm, critical thought.

Only a fool would think he could enlighten less circumspect mentalities.

The majority of the American people get exactly what they want. They are the problem. The ones they vote for are merely symptoms.

[Sir Gawain]

Is it possible for the libs to find another way to kill babies?

What I'm searching for now, is the answer to the question: Is it still possible to perform a D and X without exposing the navel. If the answer is yes, then this bill does absolutely nothing.

[Mo1]

excellent post

[Matchett-PI]

Bump!

[Mo1]

If the answer is yes, then this bill does absolutely nothing.

I didn't say that this bill does nothing .. I just said that the libs might try to find another way

[Sir Gawain]

I didn't say that this bill does nothing .. I just said that the libs might try to find another way

Sorry if you misunderstood. I mean I'm trying to find that answer outside of FR to my general question. You're right about the killing babies. A D&E abortion is most likely not covered by this bill, and I believe those are more common, and just as grotesque.

[MEGoody]

I realize the author of this article is upset. But the reality is, the last partial birth abortion ban that was passed by one of the states got overturned because it was too vague. For this law to stick, it had to be very specific about which procedures were banned.

I'd much rather see all abortion outlawed (except in cases where the life of the mother is medically at stake), but I'm still happy that at least this much has been accomplished. And we all know there's more in the works.

[rcofdayton]

If Republicans were serious about putting a crimp on abortions, they would remove jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear such cases. The fact that they have not even attempted that shows they are not serious. They speak the right words to get votes. After that, only token efforts are undertaken.

[Sir Gawain]

but I'm still happy that at least this much has been accomplished.

Skip down to #112. It hasn't been proven that the bill does anything at all yet.

[Mo1]

If Republicans were serious about putting a crimp on abortions, they would remove jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear such cases.

Remove jurisdiction?

[MEGoody]

"If Republicans were serious about putting a crimp on abortions, they would remove jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear such cases."

From a Constitutional perspective, how would they go about doing that?

[biblewonk]

Yes it was and a rarity on this topic.

[carenot]

Once the amendment had been attached, it would have been the height of folly to kill the entire bill because of one amendment that has no legal teeth at all.

I watch the Senate a lot. It seems to me they vote on each amendment.

Do you happen to know how we can check on who voted for it?

Thanks. :)

[carenot]

If they fail to do that they should face criminal charges for intentional harm and civil suits for malpractice.

Aren't hitmen, charged with murder? What are the people that hire someone to do the hit charged with?

[comnet]

[Jeff Gordon]

I wouldn't sign it in a million years.

In that case, the blood of tens of thousands of late term abortions would be on your hands.

I can not understand this Pro-life attitude of "If I can not save them all, I refuse to save any of them."

[Sir Gawain]

I can not understand this Pro-life attitude of "If I can not save them all, I refuse to save any of them."

Do you know for a fact that this bill will save even one baby?

[carenot]

Government should view abortion as murder

I may not be understanding the Constitution right. But I thought the States have the say over murder. Not the Government.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"These guys don't seem to be concerned if the bill actually works, only that it is supported by the republicans."

First assumption, you don't know the political affiliation of the people who support the bill.

Second assumption, whether "these people" are concerned or not concerned.

The bill bans what it defines as Partial Birth Abortions, lacking a legal definition of such, Congress was forced to define what exactly was being banned. Will it stop unscrupulous doctors from performing variations on PBA's? Not anymore than a complete ban on all abortions would stop unscrupulous doctors from performing abortions. It also clearly lays out a narrow definition of what PBA’s will be allowed; danger to the mother’s life.

Anyone can find a way to circumvent any law, you can’t stop unscrupulous people from doing that, but you can’t also assume that the majority of doctors are unscrupulous individuals.

I’ve been following this debate for quite some time, and while I am not up to speed on it like Marvin, I do not see this as any sort of “betrayal”, but rather a small but significant victory for the good guys. We have a long way to go, but we seem to be on our way.

As for the stuff about Roe v. Wade...I would have signed a statement supporting Hillary’s candidacy to the presidency in order to get this passed and save some babies lives.

This is being politicized by anti-GOP people...do not play politics with this issue.