[nickcarraway]

ping

[madprof98]

If anybody wonders what breeds "extremism" on the part of abortion opponents, they need only consider how nearly impossible it is to make the slightest dent in abortion by using the standard processes of democracy. Yesterday a Freeper named Tom D. posted this very thoughtful reflection on that very topic:

It is important to remember exactly what Roe v. Wade did: It put the issues swarming around most abortions beyond legal debate. If the 50 states' legislative bodies had the "right" to conduct meaningful debate there would probably be sufficient room for some steam to escape before the boiler explodes as happens with some regularity.

As matters stand now, we have the abomination of partial birth abortions; we have "abortion at any cost" folks (many of whom by the way are just as nuts as the abortion clinic bombers) whose primary mission in life is to show the "pro-life nuts" just how many babies they can kill.

If there was some opportunity for legitimate legislative debate all of the problems would not disappear, but it is a safe bet that many of the extremes would have to move to the middle and some consensus might emerge.

Don't get me wrong; I am opposed to abortion, but I am not asking the Supreme Court to say that folks who disagree with me be Constitutionally deprived of a voice on the issue. I merely ask for legitimate legislative debate in the 50 state legislatures. While they will not all get everything right, they will do better than a majority of 9 old folks who cannot be fired no matter how badly they screw something up. An added bonus would be that judical nominations would not resemble political campaigns so much as they currently do.

[Mr. Silverback]

Thanks, Nick!

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[EODGUY]

At first reading, it appeared the Supremes had finally done something positive in respect to, perhaps, saving from a brutal death the most innocent among us.

Then I read the paragraph that stated that pp had to boost it's rates for infanticide because of the increased demand on their staff for in-person counseling. The rate increase wasn't shocking because we all know pp and abortion is all about the money.

What I find pathetic about this law, even though it has been upheld, is that the "in-person counseling" can, at least, be performed by pp personnel. How thorough and convincing do you think an abortion providing agency staffperson will be in an effort to ensure that the "client" is fully informed so she can make the decision not to kill her baby, thereby depriving pp of its bloodmoney?

pp is currently waging a battle with Crisis Pregnancy Centers claiming that non-medical personnel are providing medical information to their clients. If pp must follow the same mandates, which they are required to do, the in-person counseling may be conducted by the abortionist him/herself.

I equate this law with requiring a used car salesperson to tell you everything that is wrong with the car he/she is trying desperately to sell you. I don't think the words thorough, honest and forthright would be used to describe the salesperson's assessment.

[attagirl]

"patients will suffer immediate and irreparable injury if the in-person requirement goes into effect." sick

Beginning last week, Planned Parenthood also increased its fees for abortions because of the additional staff time required for the in-person counseling, sicker

. Mike Fichter, executive director of Indiana Right to Life, deplored the ruling as a further legal stall.

Yeah, I'll say--since the law was passed in 1995 (sickest).

[shelli]

why is everyone in an upheaval over this issue of partial birth abortion, this is murder, if one is to kill a mother to be in the 5 or 6th month, they can be charged with 2 counts of murder, why is is legal fo ra doctor, i say just let it go, the President didnt ban abortion totally just this unjustifiable procedure.