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

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

[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,

"the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and such decision should not be overturned".

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.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds and declares the following:

(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.

(3) In Stenberg v. Carhart (530 U.S. 914, 932 (2000)), the United States Supreme Court opined `that significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, [partial birth abortion] would be the safest procedure' for pregnant women who wish to undergo an abortion. Thus, the Court struck down the State of Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion procedures, concluding that it placed an `undue burden' on women seeking abortions because it failed to include an exception for partial-birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the `health' of the mother.

(4) In reaching this conclusion, the Court deferred to the Federal district court's factual findings that the partial-birth abortion procedure was statistically and medically as safe as, and in many circumstances safer than, alternative abortion procedures.

(5) However, the great weight of evidence presented at the Stenberg trial and other trials challenging partial-birth abortion bans, as well as at extensive Congressional hearings, demonstrates that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure is performed, and is outside of the standard of medical care.

(6) Despite the dearth of evidence in the Stenberg trial court record supporting the district court's findings, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the Supreme Court refused to set aside the district court's factual findings because, under the applicable standard of appellate review, they were not `clearly erroneous'. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous `when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed'. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North Carolina (470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). Under this standard, `if the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently' (Id. at 574).

(7) Thus, in Stenberg, the United States Supreme Court was required to accept the very questionable findings issued by the district court judge--the effect of which was to render null and void the reasoned factual findings and policy determinations of the United States Congress and at least 27 State legislatures.

(8) However, under well-settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the United States Congress is not bound to accept the same factual findings that the Supreme Court was bound to accept in Stenberg under the `clearly erroneous' standard. Rather, the United States Congress is entitled to reach its own factual findings--findings that the Supreme Court accords great deference--and to enact legislation based upon these findings so long as it seeks to pursue a legitimate interest that is within the scope of the Constitution, and draws reasonable inferences based upon substantial evidence.

(9) In Katzenbach v. Morgan (384 U.S. 641 (1966)), the Supreme Court articulated its highly deferential review of Congressional factual findings when it addressed the constitutionality of section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Regarding Congress' factual determination that section 4 (e) would assist the Puerto Rican community in `gaining nondiscriminatory treatment in public services,' the Court stated that `[i]t was for Congress, as the branch that made this judgment, to assess and weigh the various conflicting considerations. . . . It is not for us to review the congressional resolution of these factors. It is enough that we be able to perceive a basis upon which the Congress might resolve the conflict as it did. There plainly was such a basis to support section 4(e) in the application in question in this case.' (Id. at 653).

(10) Katzenbach's highly deferential review of Congress's factual conclusions was relied upon by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia when it upheld the `bail-out' provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, (42 U.S.C. 1973c), stating that `congressional fact finding, to which we are inclined to pay great deference, strengthens the inference that, in those jurisdictions covered by the Act, state actions discriminatory in effect are discriminatory in purpose'. City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S. (472 F. Supp. 221 (D. D. Col. 1979)) aff'd City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S. (46 U.S. 156 (1980)).

(11) The Court continued its practice of deferring to congressional factual findings in reviewing the constitutionality of the must- carry provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (512 U.S. 622 (1994) (Turner I)) and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (520 U.S. 180 (1997) (Turner II)). At issue in the Turner cases was Congress' legislative finding that, absent mandatory carriage rules, the continued viability of local broadcast television would be `seriously jeopardized'. The Turner I Court recognized that as an institution, `Congress is far better equipped than the judiciary to `amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data' bearing upon an issue as complex and dynamic as that presented here' (512 U.S. at 665-66). Although the Court recognized that `the deference afforded to legislative findings does `not foreclose our independent judgment of the facts bearing on an issue of constitutional law,' its `obligation to exercise independent judgment when First Amendment rights are implicated is not a license to reweigh the evidence de novo, or to replace Congress' factual predictions with our own. Rather, it is to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.' (Id. at 666).

(12) Three years later in Turner II, the Court upheld the `must- carry' provisions based upon Congress' findings, stating the Court's `sole obligation is `to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.' (520 U.S. at 195). Citing its ruling in Turner I, the Court reiterated that `[w]e owe Congress' findings deference in part because the institution `is far better equipped than the judiciary to `amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data' bearing upon' legislative questions,' (Id. at 195), and added that it `owe[d] Congress' findings an additional measure of deference out of respect for its authority to exercise the legislative power.' (Id. at 196).

(13) There exists substantial record evidence upon which Congress has reached its conclusion that a ban on partial-birth abortion is not required to contain a `health' exception, because the facts indicate that a partial- birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care. Congress was informed by extensive hearings held during the 104th, 105th, and 107th Congresses and passed a ban on partial-birth abortion in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. These findings reflect the very informed judgment of the Congress that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care, and should, therefore, be banned.

(14) Pursuant to the testimony received during extensive legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, and 107th Congresses, Congress finds and declares that:

(A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: an increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, `there are very few, if any, indications for . . . other than for delivery of a second twin'; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death.

(B) There is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer- reviewed journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum.

(C) A prominent medical association has concluded that partial- birth abortion is `not an accepted medical practice,' that it has `never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development,' that `the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown,' and that `there is no consensus among obstetricians about its use'. The association has further noted that partial- birth abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and the public, is `ethically wrong,' and `is never the only appropriate procedure'.

(D) Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart, nor the experts who testified on his behalf, have identified a single circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to preserve the health of a woman.

(E) The physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman.

(F) A ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure will therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

(G) In light of this overwhelming evidence, Congress and the States have a compelling interest in prohibiting partial-birth abortions. In addition to promoting maternal health, such a prohibition will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide, that preserves the integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for human life.

(H) Based upon Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833 (1992)), a governmental interest in protecting the life of a child during the delivery process arises by virtue of the fact that during a partial-birth abortion, labor is induced and the birth process has begun. This distinction was recognized in Roe when the Court noted, without comment, that the Texas parturition statute, which prohibited one from killing a child `in a state of being born and before actual birth,' was not under attack. This interest becomes compelling as the child emerges from the maternal body. A child that is completely born is a full, legal person entitled to constitutional protections afforded a `person' under the United States Constitution. Partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a `person'. Thus, the government has a heightened interest in protecting the life of the partially- born child.

(I) This, too, has not gone unnoticed in the medical community, where a prominent medical association has recognized that partial- birth abortions are `ethically different from other destructive abortion techniques because the fetus, normally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is killed outside of the womb'. According to this medical association, the `partial birth' gives the fetus an autonomy which separates it from the right of the woman to choose treatments for her own body'.

(J) Partial-birth abortion also confuses the medical, legal, and ethical duties of physicians to preserve and promote life, as the physician acts directly against the physical life of a child, whom he or she had just delivered, all but the head, out of the womb, in order to end that life. Partial-birth abortion thus appropriates the terminology and techniques used by obstetricians in the delivery of living children--obstetricians who preserve and protect the life of the mother and the child--and instead uses those techniques to end the life of the partially-born child.

(K) Thus, by aborting a child in the manner that purposefully seeks to kill the child after he or she has begun the process of birth, partial- birth abortion undermines the public's perception of the appropriate role of a physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process during which life is brought into the world, in order to destroy a partially-born child.

(L) The gruesome and inhumane nature of the partial-birth abortion procedure and its disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant promotes a complete disregard for infant human life that can only be countered by a prohibition of the procedure.

(M) The vast majority of babies killed during partial-birth abortions are alive until the end of the procedure. It is a medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their perception of this pain is even more intense than that of newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same stimuli. Thus, during a partial-birth abortion procedure, the child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain.

(N) Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life. Thus, Congress has a compelling interest in acting--indeed it must act--to prohibit this inhumane procedure.

(O) For these reasons, Congress finds that partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother; is in fact unrecognized as a valid abortion procedure by the mainstream medical community; poses additional health risks to the mother; blurs the line between abortion and infanticide in the killing of a partially-born child just inches from birth; and confuses the role of the physician in childbirth and should, therefore, be banned.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 73 the following:

`CHAPTER 74--PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS

`Sec.

`1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited.

`Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

`(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.

`(b) As used in this section--

`(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; and

`(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and

`(2) the term `physician' means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this section.

`(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.

`(2) Such relief shall include--

`(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and

`(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the partial-birth abortion.

`(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life- endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

`(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take place.

`(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:

--1531'.

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

(a) FINDINGS- The Senate finds that--

(1) abortion has been a legal and constitutionally protected medical procedure throughout the United States since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)); and

(2) the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade established constitutionally based limits on the power of States to restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE- It is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and

(2) such decision should not be overturned.

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."

[TigersEye]

Kirk: "Bones, are you saying that Spock is really DarkDrake?"
McCoy: "He's Fred, Jim."

[Sabertooth]

Well. let's just say I disagree with your post.

There is a piece of legislation. We've reacted to it differently. I have some concerns about it you don't share. That's all ok. This is politics.

It doesn't mean that either of us is motivated by irrationality, hatred of FR, the GOP, President Bush, or anything else. Nor does it mean that one of us is more at odds with God than the other.

We've gotten along in the past, and while you're clearly passionate about this topic, I don't sense any malice in your posts. I hope, however, that in the future you might contemplate your reaction here a bit, and reconsider some of the rhetorical excess.

Regards

[Sir Gawain]

"That you're a blustering liar and a fraud?"

No Toothy...that's YOUR crowd, isn't it?

From the person that said I had a thousand screen names. LOL

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. The psychosis appears to be in advanced stages.

[MHGinTN]

Saber, you wrote, "This is one of those questions we won't be able to answer unless we attempt the action. Incrementalism is fine, at times, but there are also times to strike boldly. It's unwise to overrely on one tactic or the other." We have a winner in the 'reasoning it out' category! Good post, Saber! This bill is the incrementalism that leads directly to a bill banning all abortion where the prenatal little one is able to live outside the womb ... viable (now at 20 weeks in 35 to 40 % of the cases; and this will change dramatically once the Japanese artificial womb is tried with human babies ... it has kept a goat fetus alive for seventeen weeks, so far).

The attitude of the nation, the numbers in the Senate and House with a Republican in the WHite House, and a different complexion in the SCOTUS, all are vital aspects in rolling back three+ decades of death on demand reality. Every time a case hits the news that focuses upon the LIFE of the little ones (like Connor Peterson), the tide changes ever so slightly. It will not be long before a wave will be poised to wash the liberal socialist approach to death on demand right out of our national reality ... the insidiousness of liberal societal engineering is gradually coming clear to Americans as the harvest of dead relatives becomes more exposed.

If there is sufficient good left in America, abortion slaughter on demand will come to an end, albeit an incremental end. The next goal is a ban on all killing of viable little ones. [BTW, Mercuria is still pro-life, without a doubt. What she says about me or anyone else at FR is actually irrelevant; she's wrestling with political 'spectres', that's all.]

[Sabertooth]

Like I said, I'm OK with incrementalism when that's the best available course, and also when it's genuine, and not a lipstick job on what's really incremental retreat. Republicans buy into the latter trap far too often.

But also we need to remember that there are times when it's best to get into a slugfest, with the full determination to win, and crush our opponents.

Their are many arts in political war.

[Common Tator]

This situation clearly speaks to the aspirations of Jim Robinson's determined efforts to add to the majority of both houses, by voting the 'rats out.

It is self evident that neither the left or the right has a majority. If one side did they would win all the national elections. Poll after poll after poll has shown that roughly 1/3 on the voters are on the left and 1/3 more are on the right and 1/3 are in the center. The Center is made up of RINOs and DINOs. It does not take a big stretch of the imagination to see that neither conservatives nor liberals ever have control of the the Federal Senate. If the Democrats elect more DINOs than the Republicans elect RINOs the Democrats have the most power in the Senate.

I am always amazed by those that want to run the RINOs out of the Republican Party. They would just become DINOs and let the Democrats rule forever.

If the Republican have 45 conservatives and 10 RINO's in the Senate and the Democrats have 35 Liberals and 10 DINOs in the senate, the Republicans rule. NO the Republicans would not be able to hold all the RINOs on every issue. But they could always get a few DINOs to make up for the loss of some RINOs. They would not win them all, but they would win a lot more than they lose.

The Senate under FDR had a ton of Southern DINOs. But FDR could always pick up a few RINOs to win on his issues when the conservative southern senators went off the reservation. LBJ did the same thing.

Reagan constantly argued for tolerance for RINOs. He said it this way.. A Republican who is with you 80 percent of the time is not your enemy. Reagan as always used words that appealed with out invoking the wrath of buzz words. But describing some Republicans as "those who are mostly with you" is another way to say RINO.

My point is there is never a way to garner a conservative majority .... or a liberal majority for that matter. The reason is clear. About a third of the population is not ideological. They do not vote based on ideology. Thinking that people can be taught or educated to be ideological is like educating a left handed person to be right handed. It does not work well at all.

Surprisingly some ideological people can be changed from the left to the right and vice versa. But getting a majority to one side or the other has proved very elusive. It is must more effective to structure the arguments of the right so they appeal to the non ideological center.

Let me give you a couple of Reagan examples. When Reagan described his economic policy as letting people keep more of their own money, he was appealing to the non ideological voter. Telling the non ideological voter that cutting marginal tax rates is a good think, won't get their support. Letting them keep more of their own money will. Cutting marginal tax rates is an ideological appeal. Cutting government regulations is an ideological appeal. Getting Government off your back is the non ideological appeal. Cutting Goverment Regulations is an ideological appeal. To persuade the center, it is not so much what you want to do, but how it is described that makes the difference. Getting the votes of the non ideological center is the ONLY road to success. The left is quite good at selling the center. "Taxing the rich", "Special Interests", "Under the control of rich, fat, cats"... are ways the Democrats appeal to the center.

But if I make no other point, I would urge the consideration of the fact that at no time in our history has the ideology of the left or right ever enjoyed a majority. About a third of the voters and politicians are died in the wool DINOs and RINOs. The party that gets a majority of their support rules on nearly all issues. The ideology that rules is the one that learns to structure the arguments for policies so they appeal to the centrists. Failure to recognize the need to appeal to the center results in continuous defeat. Belief that the arguments that persuade the ideological will persuade the non ideological is political folly.

To rule an ideology must persuade the center using appeals that are attractive to the non ideological center.

[Deb]

Coming from one of them "principled conservatives" any reference to "groupthink" is truly gut-busting.

[Deb]

RE: #735

You make an interesting point. I was watching C-SPAN2 over the weekend and the son of Julius & Ethel Rosenberg was hawking his new book to a tiny group of aged & addled Birkenstock customers. (He is obviously a product of his parents since he heads a "progressive" non-profit org. that funnels contributions to the victimized children of leftist activists. In other words...he's a commie too.)

He ended his talk by making the point that must be the unofficial motto of the Communist party operating in America and that is...take what you can get. Don't be discouraged by people's lack of purity on your issues. Know that you will be disappointed. Expect it. Don't expect purity. Take a crumb if that's all you can get. Learn from your mistakes. Withdraw. And come back stronger another day.

Interestingly, Hillary made the exact same point when she trashed the Bush judicial nominees last week.

This philosophy makes the Left almost unbeatable because our side is sometimes newly converted and fragile, and so gung-ho and motivated that they can be devastated by a single set-back.

That you understand the politics of taking what's possible, is a huge credit ot you. I just hope more people on our side can hang in long enough to evolve like you did. It's really our only hope.

[Deb]

I can't be contrained by convention. The tragedy of losing my green sweater has left me bereft and refractory.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Like other surgeries...

These procedures should be broadcast by pro lifers on TV for all to see. A picture is worth a thousand words, a video worth 1000 pictures.

No one can complain, because it is legal...just like other procedures shown on cable 24/7.

i am so sickened by this that I no longer have an ethical problem with stopping this BY ALL MEANS POSSIBLE. Any, as long as the job gets done.

What the hell is wrong with us?

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Like other surgeries...

These procedures should be broadcast by pro lifers on TV for all to see. A picture is worth a thousand words, a video worth 1000 pictures.

No one can complain, because it is legal...just like other procedures shown on cable 24/7.

i am so sickened by this that I no longer have an ethical problem with stopping this BY ALL MEANS POSSIBLE. Any, as long as the job gets done.

What the hell is wrong with us?

[.30Carbine]

I hope, however, that in the future you might contemplate your reaction here a bit, and reconsider some of the rhetorical excess.

In reference to my rhetorical excess, that's just how I like to write.

I speak that way, too.

I'm passionate. I used to be irascible. I've been reborn but I'm still growing. (:

I have some concerns about it you don't share.

Your anxiety is unsubstantiated. Your continuously posted concerns appear to me to be either irrational weakness or purposeful subterfuge. I love and respect you; your behavior on this thread makes no sense to me. Every question you have posed about the language and possible loopholes of this legislation has been invalidated. The answers you have received have not been insubstantial opinion but established fact, direct quotes, verifiable truth: they have made no difference to you.

I have known you to be very actively pro-life. This is the first piece of pro-life legislation we have seen brought through the US Congress that will actually be signed by the President. It outlaws partial birth abortion. With no basis in logic whatsoever you are actively against it.

That was the cause of my reaction.

[Sabertooth]

With no basis in logic whatsoever you are actively against it.

I can only guess that you've confused someone else's post with mine. I have questions about the legislation, but I've nowhere suggested that I'm against it.

Let me give you my take in a nutshell... I think a slugfest for more strongly-worded PBA legislation would have been preferrable, and winnable. However, given the circumstances we currently have, I'll take the bill as written. I'm simply trying to get a handle on what it actually does. I understand you have a strong opinion on that, and that's fine. You may even be right, but I'm still going to ask more questions and wait and see how things shake out, ok?

[William Wallace]

"That you're a blustering liar and a fraud?"

"These cowards have no morals. They have no shame about lying."

************************

"It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. The psychosis appears to be in advanced stages."

"We are in control. They are in a state of hysteria. Losers, they think that by killing civilians and trying to distort the feelings of the people they will win. I think they will not win, those bastards."

Whenever you kids decide to revamp the stale talking points, there's a plethora to choose from HERE.

[Sir Gawain]

That's all you have? Yawwwwwwwwwn. I was hoping for so much more.

[.30Carbine]

What you are doing is not okay with me. It is despicable. I am not the King in FReeperdom. But I am a FReeper, and I can out you. For instance:

when it's genuine

a lipstick job

what's really incremental retreat

buy into

trap

You have been spreading lies throughout this thread by couching them in terms you hope will convince others you are sincerely 'questioning.'

there are times when it's best to get into a slugfest, with the full determination to win, and crush our opponents

You sure have been slugging away here.

Their are many arts in political war.

It's pretty obvious to me now what you are doing. I hope it is equally obvious to others who have been following this thread. I'm saddened by it, because I never would have thought Sabertooth capable of sinking so low.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

.30, these people don't understand what Bush is doing re: PBA. They only read the "abortion" part and with that, stampede to the door to trash President Bush.

[.30Carbine]

I am taking a deep breath and counting to 10. Thank you for your post to me!

[William Wallace]

I was hoping for so much more.

And you've made it this far with so much less.

[Sabertooth]

I am a FReeper, and I can out you. For instance:

when it's genuine
a lipstick job
what's really incremental retreat
buy into
trap

You have been spreading lies throughout this thread by couching them in terms you hope will convince others you are sincerely 'questioning.'

I was speaking in general terms about political strategy, in what I believe to be the out-of-context snippets from posts that you didn't reference.

If you think you've got something on which to out me, by all means, do so. However, I gently suggest that you're wasting your time, looking for more disagreement between you and me than there actually is here.

Let me explain a small part of my dilemma when I sift a story to the best of my ability...

I've gotten to the point that when I hear "incremental," it's meaningless. For example, when I was told the new prescription drug entitlement was an incremental step toward smaller government, "incremental" was meaningless, because the prescription drug entitlement actually makes the government bigger.

Unfortunately, when I now read "incremental," it has no immediate value to me, until I'm certain it actually means what it's supposed to mean, in the instance in which it's been used.

It's pretty obvious to me now what you are doing. I hope it is equally obvious to others who have been following this thread. I'm saddened by it, because I never would have thought Sabertooth capable of sinking so low.

Since you've been following this thread, kindly refer me to what you believe are my low points, and explain how they are so.