Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Members of Congress ask reversal of partial-birth abortion ruling
AP ^ | 12/9/4 | KEVIN O'HANLON

Posted on 12/09/2004 7:15:59 PM PST by SmithL

LINCOLN -- Twenty-six Republican members of Congress asked an appeals court Thursday to reinstate the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, struck down by a federal judge in September.

The House members sided with the U.S. Justice Department, saying in a friend-of-the-court brief that the government has a "vital and compelling interest in preventing the spread of the practice of abortion into infanticide."

At issue is a federal law banning a procedure doctors call intact dilation and extraction, or D&X. Opponents call it partial-birth abortion. During the procedure, generally performed in the second trimester, a fetus is partly removed from the womb and its skull is punctured.

President Bush signed the ban last year, but it was not enforced because of legal challenges.

U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf in Nebraska ruled in September that the ban interferes with a woman's right to an abortion and is unconstitutional. Kopf's ruling followed decisions overturning the law by federal judges in New York and San Francisco. Those decisions also have been appealed.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; partialbirth; pbaban; pbaban2003; ruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 12/09/2004 7:16:00 PM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL
I do not see how banning the murder of a half delivered newborn baby does anything to inhibit a woman's right to an abortion if she so chooses to have one. She has three months in the first trimester to make up her mind. There is no reason for her to wait until the baby is a viable human being on its own and then decide to have it murdered when it is halfway into this world. I cannot understand why any ethical doctor would be a party to this. There is an alternative...adoption. There are so many good people who are waiting years for an infant. Loving caring people who would be good parents to that child. Why can't she wait a couple more months and make three people very happy? She should have to watch a video of a partial birth abortion before even considering it. When I was in nursing school we were shown videos of all of the different types of abortions. I can't tell you how horrible it was to see all of the little tiny arms and legs in the strainer after they had been sucked out of the mother. And the saline abortion, I won't even describe that to you. It was revolting. I decided then that I would never assist in an abortion. I would take care of the mother afterward, but I would not assist in it.
2 posted on 12/09/2004 7:38:05 PM PST by Goodgirlinred (Four More Years!!! Goodgirlinred)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; John O

How should we best take action on this, oh wiser ones than I?


3 posted on 12/09/2004 7:42:50 PM PST by andie74 (Proud Resident of Fly-Over Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Goodgirlinred; andie74
FemiNazis made sure that Roe v Wade made the "Right to Choose" paramount. The mother's rights over the womb are absolute.....up to and including the ninth month of pregnancy.

Most people believe the court based its Roe v Wade is was on the putative viability of unborn life, and that the court examined all of the existing information, then decided there was no viability, so abortion should be legal.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have had to force newspaper editors to retract editiorials on this aspect of the USSC decision.

The court based its decision on the fact that since religion and science could not decide (up to that time) when life begins, they didn't have to, either.

Roe author Justuce Harry Blackmun wrote: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

It appears the Roe Court (or some of them) actually believed that it wasn't possible to determine when the life of a human being begins. But, by not resolving this factual issue, the Court left unresolved the legal question regarding the rights of an unborn child. So, the need to provide an answer to that question is inescapable.

Cutting edge millenium technology offers proof positive that life begins at conception. The issue of when life begins is no longer a difficult question. Scientific and medical evidence proves, without doubt, that human life begins at the moment of conception and that the child is a complete, separate, unique and irreplaceable human being from the moment of conception throughout gestation.

Since 1973, advances in technology have allowed us to obtain new information about human life on a molecular level. This information resolves all doubts that abortion is the act of killing a human being and that this tiny human experiences pain even during early gestation.

At the time of the Roe v Wade decision, abortion was completely illegal in 33 states except when necessary to save the life of the mother. The remaining 17 states allowed abortion in various circumstances. The most permissive, New York, allowed abortion for any reason up to 24 weeks, though New York did not allow third trimester abortions for "emotional health" as required by the Supreme Court.

In recent years, the abortion right has been extended to partial-birth abortions (sometimes termed infanticide) so that a perfectly viable child in the birth canal, in the process of being born, can be aborted in a most gruesome way, if the mother so chooses.

Thanks to FemiNazis, the unborn child has literally no protection in the womb, and is considered fair game by any and all saline/suction-wielding abortionists.

The USSC decision specfically states that under the equal protection clause of 14th Amendment, the unborn child is not considered a "person" and therefore has no legal rights under US law (14th Excerpt: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof......").

Roe v Wade author Blackmun wrote that "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense" and are not entitled to constitutional protection until birth.

Here, Blackmun was aided by tenets of the Jewish faith, and possibly other faiths, who teach that life begins at birth, not in the womb.

However, the official right-to-life position is that life begins at conception. Pro aborts insist that laws built on those religious beliefs infringe on their constitutional right of freedom from religion, yet they rarely if ever mention that the concept of life beginning at birth is a religious belief.

4 posted on 12/09/2004 7:49:36 PM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Abortion is the killing of a baby. Roe v. Wade is preposterous.


5 posted on 12/09/2004 8:07:00 PM PST by guitarist (commonsense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz; guitarist

Agreed.

And I'll go one step further. We are all guilty as accomplices to murder, by virtue of the fact that we are not incarcerated or killed for attempting to save these innocent lives. By our silence we give consent. By our votes, we give consent.


6 posted on 12/09/2004 11:49:34 PM PST by Indie (Ignorance of the truth is no excuse for stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Indie

Hey, we in Oklahoma elected Tom Coburn to the Senate. You can't exactly accuse us of being proabortion.


7 posted on 12/10/2004 12:10:45 PM PST by guitarist (commonsense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Goodgirlinred

I do not see how banning the murder of a half delivered newborn baby does anything to inhibit a woman's right to an abortion if she so chooses to have one. She has three months in the first trimester to make up her mind. There is no reason for her to wait until the baby is a viable human being on its own and then decide to have it murdered when it is halfway into this world. I cannot understand why any ethical doctor would be a party to this. There is an alternative...adoption. There are so many good people who are waiting years for an infant.

I heartily agree. If my mother had been abortion minded (I was born under less than planned circumstances) I wouldn't be here and many others would never have a chance to see the light of day. When I ask my female relatives why a baby shouldn't be put up for adoption rather than abortion, they seem unable to grasp the idea, saying
"How long is that woman going to feel sorry after she gives that baby up?" Go figure.


8 posted on 12/10/2004 4:01:23 PM PST by MikeConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MikeConservative

Mike, you just counter right back, "How long is she going to feel sorry for having killed her baby?" A great many women do continue to feel the pain of having made such a decision. At the time, they don't see any other way out. They are afraid, they are embarrassed, they don't know how to handle the situation. This is where counseling comes in. We need homes for unwed mothers in this country. Safe places where they get medical attention, shelter, good nutrition, and where they have time to consider their options. Then they can make the right choice, whether to keep their child or to give it up for adoption. Abortion is not the easy way out so many think it is. And why in the world there are unplanned pregnancies in this country when we have the education available and the contraceptives available I will never know. It is just heartbreaking.


9 posted on 12/10/2004 8:47:25 PM PST by Goodgirlinred (Four More Years!!! Goodgirlinred)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Well, someone needs to tell the California court that. Scott Peterson was just convicted of second degree murder in the death of his unborn son. When a baby can live on its own without being in the womb it is certainly a human being and should have rights of its own. I am of the opinion that life begins at conception. However, for those who do not believe that, they surely should be able to grasp the fact that a fetus that can survive on its own is indeed a human being with rights of its own and should not be aborted. As I said before, this whole thing makes me furious. If young or older people are going to be sexually active and do not want to become pregnant, there are so many means of contraception. They should use them so that an unwanted pregnancy is not the result.
10 posted on 12/10/2004 9:20:06 PM PST by Goodgirlinred (Four More Years!!! Goodgirlinred)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Goodgirlinred

I do believe there are a number of states that have laws that prosecute for two deaths, as when a driver is inovlved in the death of a pregnant mother and child.

Doctors have actually done surgery on the tiniest unborn----while still in the womb---months before the actual birth of the baby. If that is not an indication of viable fetal life, nothing is.


11 posted on 12/11/2004 3:06:20 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Exactly. So what is the problem with the Supreme Court? I don't see why they have a problem with determining that a fetus is a PERSON!


12 posted on 12/11/2004 8:24:00 AM PST by Goodgirlinred (Four More Years!!! Goodgirlinred)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Goodgirlinred

.....as the Dred Scot USSC decision claimed Blacks were not persons.........

Abortion (gag) rights were once seen as trendy, riding on liberal's rise to prominence, a frontal attack on the conservative establishment, and welded to the women's rights movement.

Yet, just as the light of history has shown that owning slaves was deplorable, abortion will someday be seen as a monumental crime against nature.


13 posted on 12/11/2004 9:47:07 AM PST by Liz (FReepers keep Christmas in their hearts all year long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Goodgirlinred
Mike, you just counter right back, "How long is she going to feel sorry for having killed her baby?"

tried that. If someones dead set they must be right, and filters anything through that might suggest they are wrong, well you might as well be trying to reason to a brick wall.

What I have to wonder about is that, this embryo or fetus is obviously going to be a human in about nine months by anyones standard, so even if its not believed to be alive early on, isn't destroying the fetus preventing it from being alive? Isn't that pretty close to murder, or at the very least stealing a life?
14 posted on 12/12/2004 11:01:50 AM PST by MikeConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MikeConservative

Mike, it is alive! It is growing every second! Perhaps before it actually looks like a baby they don't think of the fetus as a baby, but it is still a baby. At the fourth week of development, according to my old Maternity Care Nursing textbook, "the heart develops; double chambers visible; begins to beat; Aortic arches and major veins completed". I think the Supreme Court Justices need to spend some time with some Obstetricians on site!


15 posted on 12/12/2004 5:48:31 PM PST by Goodgirlinred (Four More Years!!! Goodgirlinred)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Liz

"Gag" is right! I can't imagine thinking of abortion as "trendy". I sure as heck hate thinking of it as one of "women's rights"! Good grief! Haven't people heard of BIRTH CONTROL????? I can understand taking the morning after pill in case of rape or incest, but just having an abortion because you don't feel like having a baby or because it is inconvenient is no excuse.


16 posted on 12/12/2004 5:56:50 PM PST by Goodgirlinred ( GoodGirlInRed Four More Years!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
And once again judges have set themselves up as gods. With the blood lust these people have for the unborn, it makes me wonder if they consume infant carcases in some kind of secret ceremonies in their chambers. What sick and hate-filled people, and they would dare to judge the motives of another.
17 posted on 12/12/2004 6:07:03 PM PST by sweetliberty (Just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we should.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Goodgirlinred
Mike, it is alive!

I believe it. Just making the point that even by pro-abortion rhetoric, the arguments still don't make sense if you really think about it.
18 posted on 12/17/2004 9:59:26 AM PST by MikeConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Goodgirlinred; Admin Moderator

Does anyone know why Liz's account has been banned/suspended? Certainly didn't appear to be a troll...


19 posted on 12/17/2004 10:08:30 AM PST by TChris (Most people's capability for inference is severely overestimated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TChris

I have been off for the holidays. Sorry. I can't help you. What is a troll? I did not know anyone could suspend an account.????


20 posted on 12/30/2004 7:16:42 AM PST by Goodgirlinred ( GoodGirlInRed Four More Years!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson