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

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,

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 ACT

To prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS.

`CHAPTER 74--PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS

`Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

--1531'.

SEC. 4. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING ROE V. WADE.

Passed the Senate March 13, 2003.

Attest:

Secretary.

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 3

AN ACT

To 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 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 921-940 next last
To: William Wallace
Fair enough, Willy boy. And you almost made it the entire post without a personal jab at someone. I'm impressed!
201 posted on 08/05/2003 1:33:42 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
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)
202 posted on 08/05/2003 1:34:52 PM PDT by honeygrl ("If you can't be kind, at least be vague." - Judith Manners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: honeygrl
Just read the whole thread to catch up...
203 posted on 08/05/2003 1:35:19 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
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.


204 posted on 08/05/2003 1:39:18 PM PDT by Sabertooth (Dump Davis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify; omegatoo
Thank you for pointing out the truth. I understand now and take back my comment from post 200.
205 posted on 08/05/2003 1:40:17 PM PDT by honeygrl ("If you can't be kind, at least be vague." - Judith Manners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
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

206 posted on 08/05/2003 1:44:58 PM PDT by Mo1 (Please help Free Republic and Donate Now !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
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.

207 posted on 08/05/2003 1:49:01 PM PDT by William Wallace (“This time I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not like Clinton. I think this is the end.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
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

208 posted on 08/05/2003 1:49:59 PM PDT by Mo1 (Please help Free Republic and Donate Now !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: honeygrl
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
209 posted on 08/05/2003 1:53:23 PM PDT by omegatoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
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

210 posted on 08/05/2003 1:54:58 PM PDT by Mo1 (Please help Free Republic and Donate Now !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Meant to reply to you, too, since I included you in my post.

O2
211 posted on 08/05/2003 1:56:29 PM PDT by omegatoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: omegatoo
Good points. Too bad I got painted a traitor to the cause just for asking a technical question.
212 posted on 08/05/2003 2:01:01 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify
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."

213 posted on 08/05/2003 2:02:58 PM PDT by Yeti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: omegatoo
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

214 posted on 08/05/2003 2:05:57 PM PDT by Mo1 (Please help Free Republic and Donate Now !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Yeti
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.
215 posted on 08/05/2003 2:07:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

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

Paint hater.


216 posted on 08/05/2003 2:20:48 PM PDT by Sabertooth (Dump Davis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; MHGinTN; cpforlife.org; Remedy
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!)

217 posted on 08/05/2003 2:21:31 PM PDT by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
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.
218 posted on 08/05/2003 2:22:54 PM PDT by William Wallace (“This time I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not like Clinton. I think this is the end.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
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?

219 posted on 08/05/2003 2:26:30 PM PDT by Yeti (You're breaking my heart here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: omegatoo
Excellent! Post #209 is, as Zappa might say, the crux of the biscuit.
220 posted on 08/05/2003 2:32:15 PM PDT by TigersEye (I'm a proud McCarthyite. Let commie heads roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 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.

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