Posted on 11/20/2002 1:41:04 AM PST by kattracks
'I will call it up, we will pass it and the President will sign it.""I" was Trent Lott, the once and future Republican Senate majority leader, in a radio interview the day after the midterm election.
"We" meant Congress.
And "it" is the giant trap the GOP is setting for the Democrats in 2004: partial-birth abortion.
A House bill that passed in the last session, and is the model for Lott's new proposal, defines partial-birth abortion as delivering a fetus "for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus."
This grim procedure usually is performed after the fifth month of pregnancy, which is why it is often called late-term abortion. By either name, the public hates it.
A Gallup Poll conducted in March 2000 (the last time the agency asked the question) found 69% of Americans opposed to abortion in the second trimester - and 86% against the operation in the third trimester.
Lott is inviting Democrats to stand with the 8% of those polled who support this procedure, which Sen. Daniel Moynihan once called "close to infanticide." The GOP will take the other 86%.
Many Democrats have figured out the math, and they don't intend to support partial-birth abortion. As a result, the ban is expected to coast through both Houses. Senate vote counters are certain it will get at least 65 yeas - more than enough to override a filibuster attempt.
That leaves roughly 35 liberal senators who evidently intend to vote against the ban. Among them is Hillary Clinton, who flatly opposes Lott's initiative and will very likely be a prominent voice against it (Chuck Schumer is still trying to fudge the issue, but he, too, will probably oppose the ban).
This would put New York's senators at odds with many of their constituents. The most recent Quinnipiac Poll on this matter, taken in June 2000, found that 63% of people in the state think partial-birth abortions should be illegal.
Still, liberal Democrats in New York and beyond seem blithely unconcerned. Implausibly, some are counting on the White House to bail them out. "The last thing Bush wants is to start the new Congress with such a divisive debate," one insider assured me. "He knows it would make him look like a tool of the far right."
This is, in a word, delusional. Dismissing the vast majority of the electorate as "far right" is the sort of superior miscalculation that led to the Democrats' midterm debacle. President Bush will not only sign a ban on partial-birth abortions, he will sign it on the White House lawn, in prime time, handing out fountain pens.
Liberal Democrats darkly charge that Lott's initiative is nothing more than another gambit in the Republicans' ongoing assault on Roe vs. Wade - and the liberals are right. "This is a baby step on the road to our ultimate goal," acknowledges Kristin Hansen, spokeswoman for the anti-abortion Family Research Council.
But, in the age of ultrasound, baby steps could turn into giant strides. The national proportion of "pro-choice" voters has dropped in the past seven years from 56% to 47% (the "pro-life" camp has risen from 33% to 46%), and there is no reason to suppose the trend will change soon. An all-or-nothing defense of partial-birth abortions will put the Democrats on the wrong side of these numbers.
Which is exactly where Lott and his fellow Republicans want them as the 2004 elections get underway.
I think O'Connor and Rehnquist will retire. Possibly Stevens or Ginsburg will to due to health.
I think the Nebraska law did not contain any life of the mother provisions. If that is included, I do not see the Supreme Court striking it down. It could be argued ( and I would agree wholeheartedly) how does a PBA help the health and life of the mother, but I think a PBA like Nebraska with the pertinent objections removed would be a giant 1st step.
If Congress does that and the abortion crowd still shrieks, they'll demontrate they are supporters of infanticide.
The first act of a Republican Congress needs to be Election Reform. Let's level the playing field and give the control of the country back to the people.
The fact that we practice it here in the united states means for some things, we are no better than savages.
If, on the other hand, you don't believe these babies are human, then why support a ban on it at all?
There is no middle ground here - except for those who are either inconsistent or apathetic.
I don't think that's a good idea. Now, as the editorial avers, the overwhelming majority of the population is against PBA and third trimester "abortions" (murders). The Dems are just looking to make anything an issue. Before they start screaming, and editorializing, and mis-informing their members, at least the PBA ban should be in place.
Meanwhile, with the majorities in the legislature, conservative judges will be approved. By the time the bans get to the courts, it will be too late to do anything about it.
The sooner this ban happens, the less of an issue it will be in the next election cycle. It will be old by them, and women will see that personal responsibility is an enabling thing, and the issue won't work.
For those of us who believe that the destruction of the life of a viable pre-born infant is murder, every day this ban waits is more slaughter that could've been stopped.
I do not know about the latter, but I know all of the former organizations (along with the ACLU) most certainly can and will lie about the reality of partial-birth abortion. We know their assertion that it is rare, only when the mother's life is in jeopardy and is performed early are complete fictions handed to a gullible American populace.
As much as I would thoroughly enjoy seeing this legislation brought up once again and passed by Congress, with the promise it would be signed into law once it hits Bush's desk, I also know once it happens it would be immediately challenged in a federal court and an activist judge will keep the law from being enforced.
That is what the unborn of today and the future have to look forward to.
Hear, hear Fogarty.
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.