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

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

[Mo1]

Does everyone here know that Santorum's wife gave birth to a child with a serious birth defect who died in her arms? She has published a book of letters that she wrote to her unborn child. Supposedly she had a hard time getting it published because it was "too Catholic."

It's called "Letters to Gabriel" .. He had a kidney defect and the doctors suggested to the Santorum's to have an abortion because there was no hope for their baby. They didn't listen and looked for a doctor that could help. It almost worked but she went into premature labor and Gabriel died soon after being born. It's a very touching story she wrote of what they went through at the time.

I hadn't heard the story that she had trouble getting it published, but I'm glad she did get it published.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"You cost Jim a few points of credibility capital and caused a lot of uneeded consternation with a lot of good people."

Well, there is you, and Toothy, and Gawy, and occasionally Freddy Mertz.

Not a lot, and not good.

You just can't handle it.

[jjbrouwer]

Please stop running to teacher. At your age, you are better than that now, I should hope...

[Luis Gonzalez]

Mind your own business.

[Fred Mertz]

Bttt

[jjbrouwer]

Please continue your off-beat behaviour and ping more important people than yourself to this thread. Gary Coleman is waiting...

[onyx]

Aaaaahhhhh, once again it's Friday night.....time for Jack and diet coke ..... and picking on Luis. Stop the latter, it's gotten old!

[DPB101]

Oh my. This thread is not family entertainment.

[onyx]

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!

Ya think?

[jjbrouwer]

Picking on Luis is essential. Or have we entered into FR Politically Correct World...?

[jjbrouwer]

How is tardshow?

[Mo1]

Article I, Section 8, clause 9 authorizes the Congress to

Thank you for that info

[Chief_Joe]

No one was attempting by this bill to overturn Roe v. Wade.

As I understand it... Congress can only act to reduce the horrors of specific practices of abortion incrementally.

Ok, I'm pragmatic enough to know that something achieved is better than nothing. There's another side to me that says there may be another reason for some of confusing language in the bill. With such language, I believe those performing these types of procedures will be taking to court and have to defend themselves. Regardless of the outcome it will likely cost them a lot of money in legal fees. This most certainly will reduce the number of persons willing to perform such procedures, and it is a good example of product introduction and development for those in the legal business. LOL.

[CWOJackson]

If this kind of case goes to court it would get some serious media coverage. That coverage will include some very graphic and specific testimony.

I seriously doubt the abortion industry wants the average American to hear details like that. It would only cost them in the long run.

[Chief_Joe]

If this kind of case goes to court it would get some serious media coverage. That coverage will include some very graphic and specific testimony.

I would hope so. Though I have some apprehension, I know it is best for people to see such procedures unfiltered or edited. Such procedures viewed in their naked rawness is precisely what this country needs to see so that they can see what the business of abortion is all about: death, or as the horse's mouth would say, early fetal demise, of a baby.

[CWOJackson]

The press is predictable in one regard: they're ratings driven and are like sharks.

I'm positive that some networks would want to ignore the trial because of their positions on abortion. But other networks, such as Fox, wouldn't. Once one network starts reporting it the rest will join in the feeding frenzy.

The majority of American's are sort of neutral on abortion because of all the propaganda. Let a high profile trial get on the air, and reporters digging for the ratings, and those people are going to learn some very unsavory things. That would swing the opinions of a lot of neutral people.

[wgeorge2001]

"Yeah, well, deliberately lying about who voted for what won't get you to heaven."


Believing and confessing how that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again the 3rd day for our justification has already done that.
However, I don't understand what you mean by lying about who voted for what.I think there may be a mis-communication somewhere.
Maybe. Have a great day. And may the good Lord have mercy on California and replace every lying politician with a man who has and will do righteousness. A rare thing indeed.

[wgeorge2001]

"The House bill contains no such language, and Republicans said this language will be removed in conference."


Excellent! The house is more representative of the people's will than the senate. Many of the senators should not be representing our representative republic, some should be on Jerry Springer's show and not in the U.S. senate.
America's youth have been dumbed down and the elected senators show the successful results of propaganda oriented mis-education in the government school system.

[Devlin]

Yikes! Think I'll stay in the bleachers for this one.

[Coleus]

bttt