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

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

[Jim Robinson]

Yes, you are wrong. And your last statement explains it all.

[Yeti]

There is a save, if the Republicans want it...

Bush refuses to sign it, then spins it through this place and elsewhere that it was because the bill was too weak.

Libs will be pulled even further rightward by the perception of W as being pro-choice, contrary to the will of his core constiuency...

[William Terrell]

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

You're right. I assumed that you're a republican.

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

Yes, I'd assumed the reaction to the "betrayal" position being a rapid support of Mr. Bush indicated you and others were concerned about the political aspects of the bill rather than whether it would work as advertised.

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.

Well, I think any doctor who performs a late term, or any, abortion is unscrupulous. My question is, will it prevent any late term abortions at all? The definition of the procedure is narrow. All an abortionist need do is do it another way, thereby vitiating the force of the "danger to the mother's life" clause.

I would like to see legislation that will halt late term abortions. It does not appear that this one will. It appears to be merely aimed at keeping pro-life people in the republican camp, when so many seem to be worried about republican commitment to their conservative principals.

I admit to being concerned about that myself, and I don't consider this bill to be a "betrayal" because I sympathize. The only real way to word the bill to work as intended is to specify the trimester being banned rather than the procedure being banned.

But, of course, if it's worded that way, the courts will throw it out because Roe turned on the 14th amendment's specification of "born or naturalized", so included any abortion prior to birth, even one second prior to birth.

That's why I sympathize but don't play the feel-good game. Roe is going to have to be clearly overturned or the power to confer citizenship is going to have to be returned exclusively to the states.

Until then, we are just fooling ourselves. I'm sorry if that offends you, Luis.

[William Wallace]

I've got a heck of an idea. How about we dump Bush and the pro-life Republicans from the House and Senate. Then we can let Hillary and Co run the country to hell and when the people finally see what full blown hell on earth is really like, they will suddenly see the light, repent, and rise up against the heathen politicians. And then we'll all live happily in paradise forever after.

Sounds like a gameplan! No way it could possibly fail to work out exactly as diagrammed. ;-)

If we post this you-know-where, then you-know-who will be convinced you also have the 'you-know-what'.

[William Terrell]

Da nada.

[Jim Robinson]

So, do you think the pro-life groups and organizations that support this bill are also in on this political scam? Is Phyllis Schlafly part of the scam? Is Alan Keyes scamming us? How about the Concerened Women For America? They seem to have a lot of confidence in this bill. Are we now to believe that the GOP haters who oppose this legislation, ie, the Libertarians, paleocons, Buchananites, Reformers, and, apparently, the Constitution Party, along with the Democrats, Socialists, liberals, et al, are correct and the pro-life, pro-family and religious leaders and organizations who support it have been scamming us all this time?

[William Terrell]

Yes. From what I understand a breech birth is atypical. But, that could be fixed easilly enough by changing the tool and method used to kill.

I'm just a layman, though. Have you seen any knowledgable doctors discuss the option?

[Mo1]

Bush refuses to sign it, then spins it through this place and elsewhere that it was because the bill was too weak.

So you are an all or nothing kind of person?

[epow]

OK Jim, I suppose I deserve your scathing sarcasm, it's your forum and I have taken advantage of it to vent my anger and disappointment. I can't change the way I feel about this deceptive bill or my anger at the Republican Senators who approved the destestable clause in re Roe v Wade, but I can refrain from using your forum to express my anger. I'll drop out of the thread now and let the other posters continue without the dubious benefit of my opinion.

[wgeorge2001]

. The 48 Republican Senators who voted to approve S.3, pledged that,
"the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and such decision should not be overturned".


Disgusting, even the conservative party has gone liberal.Does anyone know of a conservative party in America?

[wgeorge2001]

. The 48 Republican Senators who voted to approve S.3, pledged that,
"the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and such decision should not be overturned".


Disgusting, even the conservative party has gone liberal.Does anyone know of a conservative party in America?

[Live free or die]

I have been a nurse for a long time and I have seen a lot of death-- people maimed in auto accidents, gunshot wounds, you name it. I have seen surgical procedures of every sort. But in all my professional years, I had never witnessed anything like this.

This and her description of the procedure above (which I do not have the heart to read) are almost enough to make me wish there isn't a God. That way He won't get mad when he sees the utter barbarity on display here.

[Jim Robinson]

C'mon, you're just parroting the anti-GOP propaganda. It was NOT the Republicans who approved the detestable Roe vs Wade clause. That was inserted and approved by the DEMOCRATS and a handful of pro-abortion Republicans (the usual suspects).

[Jim Robinson]

That is a dispicable lie. 48 Republicans did not approve that amendment!

[Jim Robinson]

Lie, lie, lie. That was a Democrat amendment approved by the DEMOCRATS!!!

[Jim Robinson]

And this is why I hate to have this kind of propaganda posted to FR. People keep repeating the lies over and over and over. Sheesh. How about doing a little background work of your own. Who voted for and against the bill? Who voted for and against the Harkin amendment? No, you'd rather just keep repeating the lie. Your agenda is obvious.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/957323/posts

[epow]

Are we now to believe that the GOP haters who oppose this legislation, ie, the Libertarians, paleocons, Buchananites, Reformers, and, apparently, the Constitution Party, along with the Democrats, Socialists, liberals, et al, are correct

Yeah I know, I promised to drop out. But I can't leave without correcting any impression you may have that I belong in the above mentioned groups. I have been voting and working for the Republican party since before most of you were born (1958). I have never voted for a Democrat, Libertarian, Buchananite, Perotista, Constitution party, etc. I voted for GW Bush, and I voted for his father twice. In fact, I have never NOT voted for the Republican candidate in any national election in which I was qualified to vote. But at age 66 I have finally hit the wall. My old fashioned style of American is no longer represented by any party, and I don't owe any of them my vote or my loyalty.

Now I really am outta here.

[.30Carbine]

House OKs ban on partial-birth abortion

By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 5, 2003
[excerpt only]

A ban on partial-birth abortion is well on its way to becoming law, after the House approved it late yesterday on a 282-139 vote.

"After eight long years, Congress will finally send the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act to a president willing to sign it," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican.

"The debate over the rights of the unborn will continue, and new battles will be fought. But in the meantime, the American people will take this one stand ... on behalf of the innocent," he said.

Voting for the bill were 220 Republicans and 62 Democrats. Voting against it were 133 Democrats, five Republicans and the chamber's lone independent. Three Republican and 10 Democratic lawmakers did not vote.

Congress has twice passed a ban on partial-birth abortion, but both measures were vetoed by President Clinton, and although the House overrode the vetoes, the Senate did not.

In a statement after the vote last night, President Bush called it "a shared priority that will help build a culture of life in America."

...A Gallup poll in January found that 70 percent of the public favors a ban on the procedure.

The key difference between the nearly identical House and Senate partial-birth-abortion-ban bills is that the Senate adopted language on the floor reaffirming the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

The House bill contains no such language, and Republicans said this language will be removed in conference.

[.30Carbine]

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
June 4, 2003

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)

H.R. 760 - Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003
(Rep. Chabot (R) OH and 161 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly supports enactment of H.R. 760, which would ban an abhorrent procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion. The bill is narrowly tailored and exempts those procedures necessary to save the life of the mother.

Partial-birth abortion is a procedure that is not accepted by the medical community. Approximately 30 States have attempted to ban it. The Administration strongly believes that enactment of H.R. 760 is both morally imperative and constitutionally permissible.

The Administration strongly opposes any amendment to the bill that would limit its application to a time after the child is determined to be viable, which could allow this procedure to be used as late as the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy. The Administration supports the exception for procedures necessary to save the life of the mother, but strongly opposes any amendments to create additional exceptions because these exceptions may create open-ended loopholes and allow the use of the procedure even in the third trimester.

[jwalsh07]

Santorum is as anti-abortion as I am and I'm aginst it across the board. Whoever says different is full of crap.