Skip to comments.
PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN - THE BETRAYAL IS NOW COMPLETE [BARF ALERT - ANTI-GOP PROPAGANDA]
NewsWithViews.com ^
| May 9, 2003
| By David Brownlow
Posted on 08/02/2003 10:39:40 PM PDT by Uncle Bill
PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN - THE BETRAYAL IS NOW COMPLETE
NewsWithViews.com
By David Brownlow
May 9, 2003
Source
A politician would have a hard time finding a more loyal special interest group than with those of us who oppose the legalized child killing industry. For the last thirty years of the war on the unborn, we have worked tirelessly to elect pro-life, mostly Republican, politicians.
Our loyalty was so strong that even though the Republicans failed to deliver us a single pro-life victory, we continued to send them back to Washington year after year. For thirty years, we trusted the Republicans when they told us to be patient, because they had a plan and a party platform that said abortion was wrong.
We now know that everything they told us was a complete pack of lies.
We know that because the Senate has finally passed the long awaited "Partial Birth Abortion Ban," Senate Bill S.3. Rather than being a useful tool in the fight to stop a barbaric and indefensible method of child killing, S.3 reads more like an instruction manual for abortionists.
In what can only be described as the mildest abortion restrictions that one could possibly put into words, Sec.1531 instructs the "doctor" to make sure and kill the child before "in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother". Or "in the case of breech presentation", make sure the child is killed before "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother". (Actual text of SB S.3 in quotes)
With toothless restrictions like that, it is highly unlikely that even a single life will be saved. The only thing this will do is to make sure all the children are killed before the "entire fetal head" or the "fetal trunk past the navel" is showing. We waited thirty years for this?
Excuse me for shouting, but IF THE HEAD IS ALMOST OUT OF THE MOTHER, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO KILL THE KID? Do we hate children so much that we cannot wait 10 more seconds for the child to be born? 42,000,000 children killed since 1973 and this is the best they could come up with. What kind of people have we been putting into office?
If Senate Bill S.3 was just plain bad legislation, we could almost forgive the politicians for their incompetence. But believe it or not, this bill gets even worse. It gets a lot worse.
Not content to just write a watered down, sorry excuse for an abortion ban, the Senate goes on in Sec. 4, to let us all know "The Sense on the Senate Concerning Roe. v. Wade". I am not sure what kind of sense these people have, but we have definitely found out what we get for thirty years of loyalty. 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".
You need to read that again. I've read it about 20 times and it still hurts to look at it.
Please understand that it was not just a few renegade Senators who voted for this. It was 48 Republican Senators, including every one of them who ever told us they were pro-life, who put their name on a bill that says; Roe v. Wade was "appropriate." This is a clear, unambiguous reaffirmation of the illegal Supreme Court decision that started this whole mess back in 1973. If I had not read it for myself I would not believe it.
The extent of their betrayal is absolutely breath taking!
So now we know why the Republicans have gone thirty years without a single pro- life victory. These guys are not even pro-life! We have been fooling ourselves that somehow, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the years of partisan efforts were getting us closer to ending legalized abortion in America. But if the "sense" of the Senate is any indication, we have not even started the fight. We can now only hope that the House has enough sense to put S.3 out of it's misery.
A decades old policy of voting for the lesser of two evils has left us with a Republican Party that is a mere hollowed-out shell of its former self, broken beyond any hope of repair. The only way we are ever going to win this fight is by putting men and women of integrity into office who will not bow to the political pressures.
Clearly, the team we have in there now is not up to the task.
Partial- birth abortion ban hits snag over Roe v. Wade affirmation
"President Bush supports the ban, but there has been no indication if he would sign it into law if it included the Roe resolution."
S 3 ES
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 3
AN ACTTo prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds and declares the following:
(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.
(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.
(3) In Stenberg v. Carhart (530 U.S. 914, 932 (2000)), the United States Supreme Court opined `that significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, [partial birth abortion] would be the safest procedure' for pregnant women who wish to undergo an abortion. Thus, the Court struck down the State of Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion procedures, concluding that it placed an `undue burden' on women seeking abortions because it failed to include an exception for partial-birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the `health' of the mother.
(4) In reaching this conclusion, the Court deferred to the Federal district court's factual findings that the partial-birth abortion procedure was statistically and medically as safe as, and in many circumstances safer than, alternative abortion procedures.
(5) However, the great weight of evidence presented at the Stenberg trial and other trials challenging partial-birth abortion bans, as well as at extensive Congressional hearings, demonstrates that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure is performed, and is outside of the standard of medical care.
(6) Despite the dearth of evidence in the Stenberg trial court record supporting the district court's findings, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the Supreme Court refused to set aside the district court's factual findings because, under the applicable standard of appellate review, they were not `clearly erroneous'. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous `when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed'. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North Carolina (470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). Under this standard, `if the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently' (Id. at 574).
(7) Thus, in Stenberg, the United States Supreme Court was required to accept the very questionable findings issued by the district court judge--the effect of which was to render null and void the reasoned factual findings and policy determinations of the United States Congress and at least 27 State legislatures.
(8) However, under well-settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the United States Congress is not bound to accept the same factual findings that the Supreme Court was bound to accept in Stenberg under the `clearly erroneous' standard. Rather, the United States Congress is entitled to reach its own factual findings--findings that the Supreme Court accords great deference--and to enact legislation based upon these findings so long as it seeks to pursue a legitimate interest that is within the scope of the Constitution, and draws reasonable inferences based upon substantial evidence.
(9) In Katzenbach v. Morgan (384 U.S. 641 (1966)), the Supreme Court articulated its highly deferential review of Congressional factual findings when it addressed the constitutionality of section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Regarding Congress' factual determination that section 4 (e) would assist the Puerto Rican community in `gaining nondiscriminatory treatment in public services,' the Court stated that `[i]t was for Congress, as the branch that made this judgment, to assess and weigh the various conflicting considerations. . . . It is not for us to review the congressional resolution of these factors. It is enough that we be able to perceive a basis upon which the Congress might resolve the conflict as it did. There plainly was such a basis to support section 4(e) in the application in question in this case.' (Id. at 653).
(10) Katzenbach's highly deferential review of Congress's factual conclusions was relied upon by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia when it upheld the `bail-out' provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, (42 U.S.C. 1973c), stating that `congressional fact finding, to which we are inclined to pay great deference, strengthens the inference that, in those jurisdictions covered by the Act, state actions discriminatory in effect are discriminatory in purpose'. City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S. (472 F. Supp. 221 (D. D. Col. 1979)) aff'd City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S. (46 U.S. 156 (1980)).
(11) The Court continued its practice of deferring to congressional factual findings in reviewing the constitutionality of the must- carry provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (512 U.S. 622 (1994) (Turner I)) and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (520 U.S. 180 (1997) (Turner II)). At issue in the Turner cases was Congress' legislative finding that, absent mandatory carriage rules, the continued viability of local broadcast television would be `seriously jeopardized'. The Turner I Court recognized that as an institution, `Congress is far better equipped than the judiciary to `amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data' bearing upon an issue as complex and dynamic as that presented here' (512 U.S. at 665-66). Although the Court recognized that `the deference afforded to legislative findings does `not foreclose our independent judgment of the facts bearing on an issue of constitutional law,' its `obligation to exercise independent judgment when First Amendment rights are implicated is not a license to reweigh the evidence de novo, or to replace Congress' factual predictions with our own. Rather, it is to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.' (Id. at 666).
(12) Three years later in Turner II, the Court upheld the `must- carry' provisions based upon Congress' findings, stating the Court's `sole obligation is `to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.' (520 U.S. at 195). Citing its ruling in Turner I, the Court reiterated that `[w]e owe Congress' findings deference in part because the institution `is far better equipped than the judiciary to `amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data' bearing upon' legislative questions,' (Id. at 195), and added that it `owe[d] Congress' findings an additional measure of deference out of respect for its authority to exercise the legislative power.' (Id. at 196).
(13) There exists substantial record evidence upon which Congress has reached its conclusion that a ban on partial-birth abortion is not required to contain a `health' exception, because the facts indicate that a partial- birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care. Congress was informed by extensive hearings held during the 104th, 105th, and 107th Congresses and passed a ban on partial-birth abortion in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. These findings reflect the very informed judgment of the Congress that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care, and should, therefore, be banned.
(14) Pursuant to the testimony received during extensive legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, and 107th Congresses, Congress finds and declares that:
(A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: an increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, `there are very few, if any, indications for . . . other than for delivery of a second twin'; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death.
(B) There is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer- reviewed journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum.
(C) A prominent medical association has concluded that partial- birth abortion is `not an accepted medical practice,' that it has `never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development,' that `the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown,' and that `there is no consensus among obstetricians about its use'. The association has further noted that partial- birth abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and the public, is `ethically wrong,' and `is never the only appropriate procedure'.
(D) Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart, nor the experts who testified on his behalf, have identified a single circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to preserve the health of a woman.
(E) The physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman.
(F) A ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure will therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy.
(G) In light of this overwhelming evidence, Congress and the States have a compelling interest in prohibiting partial-birth abortions. In addition to promoting maternal health, such a prohibition will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide, that preserves the integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for human life.
(H) Based upon Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833 (1992)), a governmental interest in protecting the life of a child during the delivery process arises by virtue of the fact that during a partial-birth abortion, labor is induced and the birth process has begun. This distinction was recognized in Roe when the Court noted, without comment, that the Texas parturition statute, which prohibited one from killing a child `in a state of being born and before actual birth,' was not under attack. This interest becomes compelling as the child emerges from the maternal body. A child that is completely born is a full, legal person entitled to constitutional protections afforded a `person' under the United States Constitution. Partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a `person'. Thus, the government has a heightened interest in protecting the life of the partially- born child.
(I) This, too, has not gone unnoticed in the medical community, where a prominent medical association has recognized that partial- birth abortions are `ethically different from other destructive abortion techniques because the fetus, normally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is killed outside of the womb'. According to this medical association, the `partial birth' gives the fetus an autonomy which separates it from the right of the woman to choose treatments for her own body'.
(J) Partial-birth abortion also confuses the medical, legal, and ethical duties of physicians to preserve and promote life, as the physician acts directly against the physical life of a child, whom he or she had just delivered, all but the head, out of the womb, in order to end that life. Partial-birth abortion thus appropriates the terminology and techniques used by obstetricians in the delivery of living children--obstetricians who preserve and protect the life of the mother and the child--and instead uses those techniques to end the life of the partially-born child.
(K) Thus, by aborting a child in the manner that purposefully seeks to kill the child after he or she has begun the process of birth, partial- birth abortion undermines the public's perception of the appropriate role of a physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process during which life is brought into the world, in order to destroy a partially-born child.
(L) The gruesome and inhumane nature of the partial-birth abortion procedure and its disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant promotes a complete disregard for infant human life that can only be countered by a prohibition of the procedure.
(M) The vast majority of babies killed during partial-birth abortions are alive until the end of the procedure. It is a medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their perception of this pain is even more intense than that of newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same stimuli. Thus, during a partial-birth abortion procedure, the child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain.
(N) Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life. Thus, Congress has a compelling interest in acting--indeed it must act--to prohibit this inhumane procedure.
(O) For these reasons, Congress finds that partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother; is in fact unrecognized as a valid abortion procedure by the mainstream medical community; poses additional health risks to the mother; blurs the line between abortion and infanticide in the killing of a partially-born child just inches from birth; and confuses the role of the physician in childbirth and should, therefore, be banned.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 73 the following:
`CHAPTER 74--PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS
`1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited.
`Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
`(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.
`(b) As used in this section--
`(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which--
`(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head- first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
`(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and
`(2) the term `physician' means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this section.
`(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
`(2) Such relief shall include--
`(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and
`(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the partial-birth abortion.
`(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life- endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
`(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take place.
`(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:
--1531'.
SEC. 4. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING ROE V. WADE.
(a) FINDINGS- The Senate finds that--
(1) abortion has been a legal and constitutionally protected medical procedure throughout the United States since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)); and
(2) the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade established constitutionally based limits on the power of States to restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy.
(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE- It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and
(2) such decision should not be overturned.
Passed the Senate March 13, 2003.
Attest:
Secretary.
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 3
AN ACTTo prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.
END
Bush Signs Largest Family Planning Bill In U.S. History
Covenant News
Staff
January 11, 2002
On Thursday, January 10, 2002, the White House reported President Bush signed the ominous $15.4 billion foreign appropriations bill, H.R. 2506, for fiscal-year 2002. The bill authorizes $446.5 million U.S. tax dollars to be given to other countries for abortion- family planning activities throughout the world. The abortion-family planning funds approved by Bush represents an increase of $21.5 million over last year for international family planning.
[end of excerpt]
SOURCE
U.S. Quietly OKs Fetal Stem Cell Work - Bush allows funding despite federal limits on embryo use
White House killed human-cloning ban
Although President Bush has endorsed a complete ban on human cloning sponsored by senators Sam Brownback, R.-Kan., and Mary Landrieu, D.- La., White House lobbyists contacted Republican senators June 18 to ask them to vote that morning for cloture (a closing of debate to bring a legislative question to a vote) on the Senate's terrorism insurance bill (S 2600), thus preventing an up-or-down vote on a human cloning amendment that Brownback wanted to attach to the bill. His amendment would have banned the patenting of human embryos effectively destroying any economic incentive for the experimental cloning of human beings."
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News
KEYWORDS: abortion; bush; gop; pbaban2003; republican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 841-860, 861-880, 881-900 ... 921-940 next last
To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet; Mo1; William Wallace
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly.
Im crying.
Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come.
Corporation tee-shirt, stupid bloody tuesday.
Man, you been a naughty boy, you let your face grow long.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo gjoob.
Mister city policeman sitting
Pretty little policemen in a row.
See how they fly like lucy in the sky, see how they run.
Im crying, Im crying.
Im crying, Im crying.
Yellow matter custard, dripping from a dead dogs eye.
Crabalocker fishwife, pornographic priestess,
Boy, you been a naughty girl you let your knickers down.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo gjoob.
Sitting in an english garden waiting for the sun.
If the sun dont come, you get a tan
From standing in the english rain.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo gjoob ggoo goo gjoob.
Expert textpert choking smokers,
Dont you thing the joker laughs at you?
See how they smile like pigs in a sty,
See how they snied.
Im crying.
Semolina pilchard, climbing up the eiffel tower.
Elementary penguin singing hari krishna.
Man, you should have seen them kicking Edgar Allan Poe.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo gjoob ggoo goo gjoob.
Goo goo gjoob ggoo goo gjoob ggoo.
861
posted on
08/07/2003 8:27:45 PM PDT
by
Luis Gonzalez
("Palm Pilot...a nickname boys used to get when they reached puberty"---Dennis Miller)
To: DeSoto
Besides, I still like circuses, especially in states that I don't live. LOL! This should at least be fun to watch. Just watching the Dems dropping into a depression has be enjoyable.
I don't know much about the other canidates .. but other freepers say a few can also do a good job for the state.
As for Arnold .. IMO he can fix the state .. but he not a "true" conservative and I'm sure many will have something to say about it
862
posted on
08/07/2003 8:31:39 PM PDT
by
Mo1
(I have nothing to add .. just want to see if I make the cut and paste ;0))
To: Mo1; DeSoto
You guys think this is a shoe-in for Arnold?
He has serious challengers you know.
863
posted on
08/07/2003 8:40:54 PM PDT
by
Luis Gonzalez
("Palm Pilot...a nickname boys used to get when they reached puberty"---Dennis Miller)
To: Luis Gonzalez
LOL .. Oh geez
No I wouldn't say a shoe in .. I hear the Dems are gonna get really nasty and really dirty on Arnold. so anything can happen
864
posted on
08/07/2003 8:43:30 PM PDT
by
Mo1
(I have nothing to add .. just want to see if I make the cut and paste ;0))
To: Luis Gonzalez
Luis,
Don't make light of serious candidates like Gary Coleman. There are light hearted and fun candidates like Larry Flynt to consider as well. With one of the Gallagher brothers, both of the Huffingtons, and a crowd of other misfits, we are going to need a Ringmaster with a lot more than 3 rings to stage this event. LOL
865
posted on
08/07/2003 8:58:09 PM PDT
by
DeSoto
To: Luis Gonzalez
hey! why bring my school into this?
866
posted on
08/07/2003 8:59:39 PM PDT
by
Texaggie79
(Did I say that?)
To: Luis Gonzalez
Ray Rhodes is running for governor of California? I thought he was the Seahawks' new defensive coordinator. Boy, I gotta keep up with the news.
867
posted on
08/07/2003 9:00:32 PM PDT
by
DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
(Dear IRS: I would like to cancel my subscription. Please remove my name from your mailing list.)
To: DeSoto
I can understand why Flynt jumped in .. he's a pig that wanted camera time
But Gallagher ??? .. that one I don't get
868
posted on
08/07/2003 9:01:41 PM PDT
by
Mo1
(I have nothing to add .. just want to see if I make the cut and paste ;0))
To: Luis Gonzalez
What would be the difference between asking JimRob or you to verify it ? I mean, if they don't exist, then it shouldn't be a problem, right? Can Jim be asked if the other poster has EVER had, or now has, multiple ID's? I won't start posting facts or info out here, because it will only add to the flames. But the people who need to know, know.
This crap needs to drop. It's obvious Jim knows who is the pot and who is the kettle. You're still here, which says something. I think you handled this right, bringing it to the site owner in person, not dragging it out (off topic) onto a thread. Gee...what would the motive be for that, I wonder?
You're smart for not taking their bait and lowering to their position, IMO. Kinda hypocritical of them to try to get you banned for multiple screen names when they have them, too. This is ridiculous.
To: RedBloodedAmerican; Luis Gonzalez; William Wallace; Sabertooth; Sir Gawain
I say, drop this and have some milk and cookies like mature 5 year olds.
870
posted on
08/07/2003 9:27:29 PM PDT
by
Texaggie79
(Did I say that?)
To: Texaggie79
Lactose intolerant. Allergic to flour and chocolate. Any other bright ideas?
To: RedBloodedAmerican
yeah! round up the girls and let's play doctor.....
872
posted on
08/07/2003 9:33:31 PM PDT
by
Texaggie79
(Did I say that?)
To: RedBloodedAmerican
This crap needs to drop I agree
873
posted on
08/07/2003 9:41:34 PM PDT
by
Mo1
(I have nothing to add .. just want to see if I make the cut and paste ;0))
To: Luis Gonzalez; Jim Robinson
From the
ACLJSenate Passes Ban on Partial Birth Abortion
Susan Jones Morning Editor
(CNSNews.com) - As expected, the Senate passed a bill banning partial birth abortions Thursday morning, by a vote of 64 to 33. House passage is anticipated this spring, and President Bush has said he will sign the bill into law.
Supporters say the bill outlaws a barbaric procedure that is tantamount to infanticide - a baby is partially delivered, stabbed in the head, and then born dead. Opponents say the bill is a Trojan horse - a sneaky move to clamp a wider ban on other types of abortions.
Opponents of the bill are promising a court challenge once it becomes law, and supporters say they're ready.
The American Center for Law and Justice called passage of the bill "an important victory for the protection of human life."
Jay Sekulow, ACLJ's chief counsel, said his group will now work to ensure passage of a partial birth abortion ban in the U.S. House of Representatives. And he predicted the measure will end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In that case, Sekulow said, "We will work aggressively to defend this law in court - a law that is not only necessary, but eminently constitutional as well."
Another pro-life group, Concerned Women for America, said the bill the Senate passed on Thursday will "end a gruesome procedure that is harmful to women."
Sandy Rios, CWA president, says the late-term procedure endangers women's lives for the abortionist's convenience.
"Who would have thought that a ban on such a harmful procedure as partial-birth abortion would have taken nearly a decade to enact into law?" Rio s asked.
Dr. James Dobson, president of Focus on the Family, called Senate passage of the bill a victory for the most vulnerable members of the human family - babies just a heartbeat away from being born.
"Any society that condones infanticide cannot call itself civilized," said Dobson in a statement. It not only kills babies, "It dulls our senses as a nation," he said.
Some pro-life groups, however, see the partial birth abortion bill as a smokescreen that obscures the real issue - which they define as abortion at any stage of pregnancy.
In a statement, President Bush called partial-birth abortion "an abhorrent procedure that offends human dignity." He commended the Senate for passing the bill, calling the action "an important step toward building a culture of life in America."
To: Luis Gonzalez; Jim Robinson
ACLJ Applauds U.S. House Approval of Ban on Partial-Birth Abortion
June 5, 2003
(Washington, DC) - The American Center for Law and Justice, a public interest law firm specializing in constitutional law, said the vote last night in the U.S. House of Representatives approving legislation that bans partial-birth abortion is a critical next step in the defense of the unborn. The measure passed by a vote of 282-139.
"This is the next critical step in protecting the life of the unborn from a procedure that can only be described as infanticide," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. "This is a constitutionally-sound measure that will meet the legal challenges ahead. We look forward to President Bush signing this bill and stand ready to defend it in the courts."
The ACLJ this week notified the House that it has heard from nearly 145,000 Americans who signed petitions urging the House to approve a ban on partial-birth abortion. The Senate already approved a similar measure and once the differences are worked out, President Bush has said he will sign it into law. Once that occurs, several organizations have said they will immediately file lawsuits challenging the measure.
The American Center for Law and Justice is a public interest law firm specializing in constitutional law. The ACLJ is based in Washington, D.C. If you would like additional information about the ACLJ, you can visit these websites: www.aclj.org or www.demossnewspond.com/aclj.
http://www.aclj.org/news/pressreleases/030605_pba.asp?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030605/ts_nm/congress_abortion_dc_4
To: Mo1
Oh I can understand the Gallagher bit.
Can't you visualize the sledge-o-matic shtick at the podium in the rotunda in Sacramento? It would be a performance of a lifetime. LOL
From the official Gallagher website.
GALLAGHER FOR GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA!!
The problem with politics is that it is too lucrative. If you vote for something you get paid. If you don't vote for something you still get paid. Anybody in their right mind would go into it. What we need is people who are not of their right mind to get things done! If you are against gay sex, then let gay people get married, that kills the sex everytime!
876
posted on
08/07/2003 9:52:23 PM PDT
by
DeSoto
To: winodog
Mothers-Doctors,also Father,Grandmother's,Grandfather's.Aunt's,Uncles,Best friend's,prayer pratner's,,Sister's.Brother's.If you stand outside an abortion chamber you see it all.
877
posted on
08/07/2003 9:53:54 PM PDT
by
fatima
(Jim,Karen,We are so proud of you.Thank you for all you do for our country.)
To: DeSoto
Can't you visualize the sledge-o-matic shtick at the podium in the rotunda in Sacramento? It would be a performance of a lifetime. LOL ROFL!! .. you know, I never thought of it that way
878
posted on
08/07/2003 10:01:21 PM PDT
by
Mo1
(I have nothing to add .. just want to see if I make the cut and paste ;0))
To: winodog
Following are excerpts from the Senate floor debate on S. 3, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
Mrs. CLINTON. Does the Senator's legislation make exceptions for serious life-threatening abnormalities or babies who are in such serious physical condition that they will not live outside the womb?
Mr. SANTORUM. No, if----
Mrs. CLINTON. That is the point.
Mr. SANTORUM. I understand the Senator's point. I guess my point in rebuttal is that if you want to create a separation in the law between those children who are perfect and those children who are not----
Mrs. CLINTON. No----
Mr. SANTORUM. Please, let me finish. If a child is not perfect, then that child can be aborted under any circumstances. But if that child is perfect, we are going to protect that child more. I do not think the Americans with Disabilities Act would fit very well into that definition. The Americans with Disabilities Act--of which I know the Senator from Iowa has been a great advocate, and I respect him greatly for it--says we treat all of God's children the same. We look at all--perfect and imperfect--as creatures of God created in his image.
What the Senator from New York is asking me to do is separate those who are somehow not the way our society sees people as they should be today and put them somewhat a peg below legal protection than the perfect child. I hope the Senator is not recommending that because I think that would set a horrible precedent that could be extrapolated, I know probably to the disgust of the Senator from Iowa, certainly to me.
No, I do not have an exception in this legislation that says if you are perfect, this cannot happen to you; but if you are not perfect, yes, this can occur. The Senator is right, I do not. ...
Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, first, I say again that in many of these difficult cases, if not all of them, to my knowledge--and I would be curious to hear if there is a case I am not aware of where there needs to be a separation of the mother from the child. I am not aware of any case, and I would certainly be anxious to hear any testimony to the contrary where separation necessarily means abortion. Separation does not necessarily mean abortion, and there are other ways to protect both the health of the mother and the health of the child. As a society, I think if that is possible, then that should be our preference.
Let me go back and talk about the overall issue of Roe v. Wade and where we have come as a result of that. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Maybe the biggest problem I have with Roe v. Wade was that abortion was a matter that was decided by the people and by its elected representatives. It was, as every other issue is in America, decided in the public square, decided by this kind of debate.
I think this is wonderful. I think the people need to hear this. We do not get enough debate on the issue of abortion. It has sort of been put away in a corner. Why? I would argue this is the great moral issue of our time. It parallels very closely the issue of slavery back in the early 1800s, and the reason is because it is really the same issue.
The slavery issue was: Here is the African American, here is the black man and woman, and what we said in this country was we could look at this person, we could see this person, but under the Constitution it was not a person. We said this individual, this human being, was not conferred personhood under the Constitution. That is what slavery was all about. As a result, that person was property. What all of us knew to be a human being became property, and we had to fight a war to eventually overturn that.
Where are we with the issue of abortion? The child in the womb is not considered a person under the Constitution. Now, we can see it in a sonogram. That is one of the things that makes partial-birth abortion such an important debate because the baby can really be seen. One can see this is a human being; it is nothing but. But according to the Constitution, this child is not a person.
It is the same debate. It is the same argument. William Wilberforce in England, when he fought to overturn the slave trade, put together a poster. It was a picture of a black man. Underneath the picture, it said: Am I not a man?
I would simply say, look at this chart and under this picture could we not say: Am I not a child?
According to Roe v. Wade, according to the law of this great land, the answer to that question is, emphatically, no, and look what we can do to you.
Why? Because you are property. You are like the slave. You have no rights.
How we have twisted our Constitution, which is based on life and liberty. What is first, liberty or life? Think about that. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Do we think the Framers sort of just threw those words together? Do we think they could have said, happiness, liberty, life, they sort of played around and said, which one of these is the right one? Did they put them in order for any reason? We can bet they put them in an order for a reason.
Can someone have liberty without life? No. There is no way possible, if one does not have the right to life, that they can have any liberty.
Can someone have true happiness without liberty? No. Life is a prerequisite to liberty. But what have we done in the case of Roe v. Wade? We have taken life and liberty and we have flipped them.
In Roe v. Wade, the Court put liberty ahead of life, and said the rights of a woman, liberty--this is the liberty clause, this is the grounds from which Roe v. Wade was derived. Of course, the right to abortion is not in the Constitution. But where does it come from? It comes from the what clause? The liberty clause.
So we took liberty and moved it ahead of life. What are the consequences of that? Obviously, we know what the consequences of that are for the child. What are the consequences of that for all of us? The consequences of that for all of us are that now one's freedom to do what one wants trumps someone else's right to exist.
In this case, it is just this little child in the womb. But if we set this precedent, which we have, that my right to my liberty trumps another's right to life--the Senator from New York talks about the slippery slope. Oh, what a slope we are on now. The Senator from New York talked about, you did not show the deformed child. Well, there is a guy in Princeton, NJ, by the name of Peter Singer who talks just about that issue. He talks about the deformed child. And what does he say? He says Roe v. Wade has it right. They put liberty in front of life, and that is right because some people are not worth having around. Yes, that is what he says. Is this guy a kook? Is this guy some sort of flake who is out there in the ether? No.
He is a professor. Is he a professor at XYZ State University at Blackwater, PA? No. He is at Princeton University--a ``distinguished'' chair at one of our great universities.
What does he say? He writes: I should think it should be somewhat short of one year.
What does he mean, ``somewhat short of one year''?
Somewhat short of 1 year after birth that we should be able to--what? Kill these little deformed children who happen to be born. Why? Well, because they are not really useful. Their life doesn't mean much. Our liberty means more than their life. Here again, moving life in front of liberty. Oh, what a tangled web we weave.
This is the product of Roe v. Wade. This is the product of the Court taking from us who understand ordered rights--that rights are put in order for a reason. Our Founders had it right.
Those who proclaim the virtue of abortion as a right said this would be a blessing to our society. They said: This would be a great blessing. So many positive things will happen. Divorces will come down. Spouse abuse will come down. Infant abuse will come down. Child abuse will come down. Abortions, of course, will go up, but the benefit is domestic violence will go down, teen pregnancy will go down, infanticide will go down, abandoned children will go down. And of course, none of them did. None of them did. Quite the contrary. All of them have at least doubled since 1973 as a percentage.
So this nirvana that getting rid of these--because, see, they argue that since we are going to get rid of 1.3 million children--25 percent of all pregnancies end in abortion--since we are going to get rid of all these unwanted stresses in people's lives, problems in people's lives, then people will be better off, people will be happier, people will be more free; people won't do bad things because they won't have this stress that complicates their life.
But is that the lesson that people learn? No. Sadly, people are much smarter than that. They learned from the leaders of our great country that the value of life was diminished. And they learned from our great country that their personal liberty was more important than your life. Their liberty, their rights, trump you. That is what they learned.
As I mentioned earlier, that is why the two guys ran into Columbine, toting their guns and shooting people, screaming, ``I am the law,'' because that is what Roe v. Wade taught us. They taught us we can put down our neighbor, just like in the early years of this country we could put down the black man and woman.
We are on a very dangerous practice. I know we will celebrate and affirm Roe v. Wade. Our colleagues will support it because it is the law of the land and it is well accepted. I accept the fact that in this body I am a voice in the wilderness. But I will speak. This is not the most popular thing to come and talk about. These halls are not filled with people who want to speak on this issue. I understand, this is a tough one. You make a lot of people mad when you get up and talk about abortion because it is personal. I know. It is personal. But we have to step back.
I thank the Senator from Iowa for giving us an opportunity to step back and look at what we are doing, look at what we have done, and look at what may come of us if we do not turn away and give back to the people.
I was at a briefing the other day, and someone talked about the Iraqis and said: We are worried about them transitioning to democracy because historically they like being ruled. And I thought to myself: Just like Americans on abortion. They like being told what their position should be. They like the Court taking it and ruling. They do not want to have to think about it. They know they do not like it, but they do not want to talk about it, think about it, vote. They want someone else ruling for them. It is easier to give someone else your rights and let them make decisions for you. It makes your life a lot simpler.
I argue it is not making your life much better. No, what Roe v. Wade has done is separate the person, the human being--and there is no doubt, from the moment of conception this is a genetically human organism. It is human, fully human. Nothing is added. It is fully human. And it is, by definition, alive. How do we know? Because the definition of life is something that metabolizes, and this clearly is metabolizing. It is human life.
What did Roe v. Wade do? It took away the instantaneous bonding of human life and human person under the Constitution. It separated them. I repeat this for emphasis. It separated the human person from the human being. That precedent is now the law of the land. And you know what happens with precedent in this country; it is followed. Today for the unborn, tomorrow for--watch out. Watch out.
I remember in one of the early debates on this bill, I got an e-mail from a man from London who said he was sitting there watching the debate, hearing people talk about all these people with disabilities who needed to be destroyed through partial-birth abortion. Not because the mother's health was in danger--because they just were not perfect. He said: I am sitting in my wheelchair as a disabled man with spina bifida, knowing that they are talking about me. They are talking about me.
Today the child in the womb. Tomorrow?
I yield the floor.
To: Luis Gonzalez
I have this fantasy of setting up another account as "Bad Torie," and then having Bad Torie debate with Torie. Maybe I could have a third account named "Good Torie," and get "her" into the mix too. Who who is part of the FR power structure should I contact to make this all happen, so as to avoid the unpleasantness of having all three names being Zotted?
880
posted on
08/07/2003 10:10:37 PM PDT
by
Torie
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 841-860, 861-880, 881-900 ... 921-940 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