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

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

[Sir Gawain]

Fair enough, Willy boy. And you almost made it the entire post without a personal jab at someone. I'm impressed!

[honeygrl]

I'm trying to figure this out here so bear with me.. is what he said about the ban true or false? (i'm really am not trying to troll, i just want to know the truth about the ban)

[Sir Gawain]

Just read the whole thread to catch up...

[Sabertooth]

I'm not an abortionist, and I don't really want to speculate on the more gruesome aspects of the trade. It certainly doesn't require much force to penetrate the top of a baby's head, where the skull is not fully closed.

Abortionists view their carnage as a calling, and I don't doubt they'll look for loopholes or end-arounds with regard to this legal definition of PBA.

That doesn't mean it's not good legislation. Looks like a start, and I'm teachable on the particulars.

[honeygrl]

Thank you for pointing out the truth. I understand now and take back my comment from post 200.

[Mo1]

Can a PBA be performed on a baby with only the top of the head exposed?

Couldn't an abortionist drive a spike through the gap in the unfused cranial sutures, clear through the head and into the base of the skull?

Could they? .. yes they could, but that could also other complications that could harm the health of the mother IMO

First they have to turn the baby around, which is not all the easy to do .. if it was there would be alot less c-sections I would think

[William Wallace]

Kinda strange that Mercuria, UncleBill, the Constitution Party, et al, are joining forces with the likes of abortionists Harkin, Clinton, Boxer, Feinstein, Dodd, Baucus, Sarbanes, Schumer, Chaffee, Collins, Snowe, et al.

On an unrelated subject, are you still posting as TLBSHOW over there? ;-)

Taking wagers on how soon Todd starts a "JimRob is TLBSHOW" thread.

[Mo1]

How would the abortionist get the suction to the hole before the contents of the baby's skull started leaking back into the mother, causing serious complications, infection?

Your are right and it would (besides murdering the baby) also cause harm to the mother's health

[omegatoo]

The description of how to perform 'legal' PBA is taken out of context in the original post in that it quotes the definition of PBA in the bill and then rails that anything other than that is allowed. Of course the bill can't ban every abortion, or it would never see the light of day, but to take the definition of what is banned and turn it around to say that this bill legalizes everything else is misleading to say the least.

On rereading Sir Gawain's questions, I do think that this bill would be better if it used "the mother's womb" instead of "the mother's body" as a mark, but I still think it is a reasonable bill. It would be nearly impossible to perform a PBA without the naval or the entire head exposed, so this bill WILL stop some abortions.

More importantly than this, however, there will now be restrictions on what can and cannot be done. This means that every time an abortion is performed, the abortionist is now subject to rules that if violated can send him/her to jail. That changes the playing field immensely and I think is more important than the actual description of WHAT is banned. What abortionist can be sure of the loyalty of their entire staff when one belly button can send you to jail? I like the idea of them constantly having to look over their shoulders, I think it will slow them down and even push some of them to stop performing these procedures just because of the risk of a belly button slipping out.

Sorry to be so long, but I just thought of this, too. If a belly button does slip out, the abortioninst now has to (horror of horrors) deliver the baby. Now you have a live, premature, critical care baby. That means all abortion centers will have to have the means to resusitate those babies or face mega malpractice awards from disabled kids. Not to mention that their malpractice insurance is going to go through the roof. Will they have to have pediatric intensivists on call? Incubators? Respirators? PICU trained nurses? Hey, I think I've stumbled on something great here!

Love, O2

[Mo1]

Abortionists view their carnage as a calling, and I don't doubt they'll look for loopholes or end-arounds with regard to this legal definition of PBA.

I am sure they will .. for some reason that is beyond my understanding, abortion is their #1 issue and will do anything to achieve it

I admit that this PBA is a small win in the the big picture of stopping abortions .. but it is still a win and a move in the right direction

[omegatoo]

Meant to reply to you, too, since I included you in my post.

O2

[Sir Gawain]

Good points. Too bad I got painted a traitor to the cause just for asking a technical question.

[Yeti]

You, Uncle Bill, are a damnable liar and should be banished from this site. Shame on you! The Senate bill says the opposite of what you claim it says.

Read what you posted, then think about it.

The child's head can be outside the mother up to the chin and the child killed without it being illegal. In the case of breach, the child can be outside the mother's body up to the buttocks, and the child legally killed.

The "Sense of the senate" part is especially bad, as it makes unlikely the possibility of judicial "deactivism."

[Mo1]

Will they have to have pediatric intensivists on call? Incubators? Respirators? PICU trained nurses? Hey, I think I've stumbled on something great here!

Yes you have

[Jim Robinson]

B/S. That's all twisted propaganda. And the "sense of the senate" bit is a Democrat amendment designed to kill the bill and it will be deleted from the final bill when it comes out of the House-Senate conference.

[Sabertooth]

Too bad I got painted a traitor to the cause just for asking a technical question.

Paint hater.

[hocndoc]

You didn't ask me, but,I've pinged some of the more pro-life members of FR, and have an opinion.

The bill, which is still in committee to work out the differences between House and Senate versions, is "as good as it gets" until we have a different Supreme Court or an Amendment to the Constitution. The Legislators were compelled to write the law within the confines of the Stenberg/Carhart decision.

I don't believe we've been betrayed, but there is a problem getting rid of the Senate Amendment that affirms that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. One of my Senators, Kay Bailey Hutchison, voted for this amendment (and, boy did I fuss!)

[William Wallace]

The article is disingenuous as is UB. The only reason I don't think he's a DNC shill is their propaganda is usually more credible than his stuff. I assume everyone else here is sincere, either pro-lifers who fell for the scam or disgruntled conservatives of the paleo stripe who can't stand Bush.

[Yeti]

twisted propaganda.

Jim, are you serious?

Did you read the definition of partial birth abortion in the bill?

`(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;

Seems pretty clear to me. And that's before you even parse "deliberately and intentionally" "for the purpose of" "knows will kill" or "overt" ...

Can you see that?

[TigersEye]

Excellent! Post #209 is, as Zappa might say, the crux of the biscuit.