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 ... 481-500501-520521-540 ... 921-940 next last
To: nunya bidness
"Laws are supported based on the transgression of acts under the observation of law enforcement personel or a witness."

Absolutely not. You are saying that sans a witness to the act, laws can't be enforced.

That's simply not true. There were no witnesses in the David Westerfield trial, he is in jail.

501 posted on 08/05/2003 10:46:07 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (LP is bragging that they got over 100 new members this month...they were all me guys :-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain; jjbrouwer
It just occurred to me that jj has multiple J's. Not that there's anything wrong with that.


502 posted on 08/05/2003 10:47:45 PM PDT by Sabertooth (Dump Davis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Absolutely not. You are saying that sans a witness to the act, laws can't be enforced.

Evidence is a witness. How do you define evidence in this case?

503 posted on 08/05/2003 10:48:38 PM PDT by nunya bidness (sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies]

To: nunya bidness
When a man murders another man he has to have been witnessed by another man and challenged based on testimony in a court of law. Who is the witness in this case? The sworn testimony of the abortion doctor? Hardly a reliable source by any standards.

Would there not also be other people in the room .. like a nurse or two?

504 posted on 08/05/2003 10:50:32 PM PDT by Mo1 (I have nothing to add .. just want to see if I make the cut and paste ;0))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez; Brad's Gramma; homeschool mama; Cordova Belle
Hello my friend..

I mean no disrespect to you, but I could give a Tinkers dam what Mertz has to say about anything..

All I will say on this subject is this..

I miscarried the only baby ever given to me, and was never able to have another..

How someone could PURPOSELY do this is beyond comprehension, at least to me..it doesn't interest me, what Mertz has to say about it, or anyone else who has never been through it, has to say about it..

Part of my spirit died that day..

Pro-choicers flame away..nothing really could ever hurt that much

"Anyone who is for abortion HAS been born"...Ronald Reagan

Ms.B

505 posted on 08/05/2003 10:50:58 PM PDT by MS.BEHAVIN ("Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds".Re-elect G.W.Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
They pars, spin, weave and dodge. I'm trying to figure out if they're real or some kind of new slinky toy. Are they wind up or battery operated.
506 posted on 08/05/2003 10:51:22 PM PDT by CWOJackson (For the visiting team of patsies that is...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies]

To: MS.BEHAVIN
Great tag line.
507 posted on 08/05/2003 10:52:39 PM PDT by CWOJackson (For the visiting team of patsies that is...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
I think jj's a retread too.
508 posted on 08/05/2003 10:53:43 PM PDT by Sir Gawain (Welcome to my bozo filter, fatboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: CFC__VRWC; Jim Robinson

An apt description of the moral-liberal anarchists posting here as 'patriots.'

509 posted on 08/05/2003 10:54:11 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Feel free. I've always found intelligent women more to my personal liking.

You may be fishing in the wrong pond then, CWO! (For the nannies, "That was a joke, that was a joke...")

Seriously though, I don't agree with Mercuria's political views (or indeed many people's political views...!) but she has a wonderful sense of humour and is very quick on the uptake. I wish she would post here but I doubt she will.

510 posted on 08/05/2003 10:54:18 PM PDT by jjbrouwer (Sometimes THE GREATS come back...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | View Replies]

To: MS.BEHAVIN
Anyone who flames you will have me to contend with too!

Great quote from President Reagan.
511 posted on 08/05/2003 10:54:20 PM PDT by justshe (Educate....not Denigrate !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: nunya bidness
I'm not an attorney, but I understand a few things.

The vast majority of people do not wish to run afoul of the law, doctors certainly do not for the most part.

It would be difficult for an abortionist to argue that a PBA (something that takes days to prepare and perform) was done as an emergency ue to a life-threatening condition to the mother.

Without that concession, the bill may have encountered serious challenges, and may not have passed.

Would that have been a better scenario for you?

Without this bill, many babies would die. With it many babies may be saved, and a few may die.

Which would you prefer?
512 posted on 08/05/2003 10:54:24 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (LP is bragging that they got over 100 new members this month...they were all me guys :-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
I think jj's a retread too.

If you are going to insult me, please get it right. It is spelled R-E-T-A-R-D...

513 posted on 08/05/2003 10:57:32 PM PDT by jjbrouwer (Sometimes THE GREATS come back...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: jjbrouwer
While I consider voting for Mondale and buchanan funny I don't consider it a measure of a sense of humor or being very quick on the uptake.
514 posted on 08/05/2003 10:57:33 PM PDT by CWOJackson (For the visiting team of patsies that is...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: fatima
Sabertooth, How will it be sidestepped?

Let me set this up... As I understand it, this PBA ban was crafted to meet certain SCOTUS requirements, as written by Sandra Day O'Connor. As a result, an fairly narrow definition of PBA was necessary.

In the case of a head first extraction, the head must not be fully exposed. In the case of a breach delivery, the navel of the baby must not be exposed. Either is the case with most PBAs now performed.

However, what is being outlawed here are techniques. So, the legislation can be sidestepped by way of new techniques that kill the baby further up into the mother's womb, without navel or full cranial exposure.

Think about the various "assault weapons" bans, and how easily many of them were sidestepped.

So again, as I see it, this legislation is better than nothing, but only if we recognize its limits and shortcomings.


515 posted on 08/05/2003 10:58:17 PM PDT by Sabertooth (Dump Davis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: jjbrouwer
All I know is someone used to post here under your name and they were much cooler.
516 posted on 08/05/2003 10:58:25 PM PDT by Sir Gawain (Welcome to my bozo filter, fatboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: MS.BEHAVIN
I'm so sorry I asked you here, I did not intend to cause you pain.

This bill saves lives that would not have been saved before, but its political value to malcontents is far more important than that fact.

Thanks for answering.
517 posted on 08/05/2003 10:58:35 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (LP is bragging that they got over 100 new members this month...they were all me guys :-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
"In the case of a head first extraction, the head must not be fully exposed. In the case of a breach delivery, the navel of the baby must not be exposed. Either is the case with most PBAs now performed."

But ONLY in the case of the mother's life being in danger..that requirement has to be met first.

518 posted on 08/05/2003 11:00:15 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (LP is bragging that they got over 100 new members this month...they were all me guys :-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
All I know is someone used to post here under your name and they were much cooler.

TLBSHOW no longer has access to my password.

519 posted on 08/05/2003 11:00:17 PM PDT by jjbrouwer (Sometimes THE GREATS come back...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: justshe
Is that a promise?

Thanks so very much for your support...

Ms.B
520 posted on 08/05/2003 11:00:41 PM PDT by MS.BEHAVIN ("Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds".Re-elect G.W.Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540 ... 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