Well Jim, either Rick Santorum is trying to put one over on us or UncleBill & Co. are trying to put one over on us. Which is more likely? [Rhetorical question, we already know the answer.]
The reason the bill is so carefully worded is simply to withstand constitutional challenge from the SCOTUS. The text is drafted in a fashion that makes it impossible for the current SCOTUS to invalidate it without either flatly contradicting itself or fashioning a new pretext out of whole cloth. The hard core pro-aborts on the Court will do whatever is necessary, but IMO the flippers are unlikely to go along with the Ginsburgs. I'd characterize this effort as a job well done.
It's pretty clear from the Finding of Facts section that the Senate included the "when the life of the mother is endangered" exception only because the Supreme Court recently declared a similar ban unconstitutional for lack of same. The Findings of Fact section also make it clear that Congress agrees with the AMA and 99.8% of obstetricians not on Planned Parenthood's payroll that PBAs are NEVER required to save the life of the mother.
If an abortionist tries to rely on the mother's life exception, the compelling and unambiguous Congressional findings on the subject will be part of the record before whatever court faces the issue. Any abortionist who performs an PBA from now on will be gambling his freedom on the luck of the draw in getting a lefty judge assigned to his case who'll accept his bogus exception excuse in the face of overwhelming medical evidence and these Congressional findings. As Clint Eastwood would say, the question for the PBA performing abortionist is "Do you feel lucky?"
The bill also includes a civil damages section that allows parents to sue physicians for injuries, including psychological injuries, incurred during PBAs. This section creates a financial incentive for otherwise erstwhile allies in the culture of death (i.e., greedy trial lawyers) to devour their own for a change. It's an in terrorem clause for abortionists that hits them right where they live. I like it.
Instead of focusing on these sections, the author of this hit piece and his dupes focus on a legally meaningless resolution of the Senate affirming the Supreme Court's decision Roe v. Wade. To borrow Mercuria's phraseology, this is the real "Potemkin" section of the law. Actually my preferred legal phraseology for this insertion is "BFD." This section adds nothing to the law, it takes away nothing from the law. It is simply included as a political figleaf for the pro-abort RINOs who otherwise might have balked at passing a PBA ban. If they had held out for Mardi Gras beads, that would have cost more, plus we might have had to endure the spectacle of RINO women in the Senate like Snowe and Specter topless. [Coulter joke]
The gratuitous praise for Blackman's folly in this section is almost the perfect insult. Generally speaking, one expects Supreme Court decisions to stand on their own merit without the need for Stuart Smally-like affirmations from other independent branches of government. When referees make calls, they don't usually solicit approval from the players. It speaks volumes to the insecurity and uncertainty of Roe's defenders that they think this sort of lip service adds any legitimacy to that dubious decision. It's almost as if they believe Harry Blackman is reading this somewhere and saying "You like me, you really like me."
We can agree with the naysayers on these points: The bill doesn't ban all abortions. It doesn't overturn Roe (Congress CANNOT overturn Supreme Court decisions.) It doesn't even ban all third-trimester, only the most horrific ones, unspeakably gruesome procedures notorious for their singular savagery and barbarism. It doesn't mark the end of Roe v. Wade, but it is a start. After 30 years of legalized slaughter of innocents, even a small victory is cause for hope. "This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
The peculiar institution of slavery wasn't abolished overnight. The Emancipation Proclamation specifically declared slaves free only in those states that were in insurrection with the government that issued the proclamation. Is there any doubt how the author of this article would have characterized the Emancipation Proclamation or the Republican president who signed it?
The defeat of the Evil Empire didn't happen overnight either. The first setback for Communism in the Cold War seemed insignificant at the time. The liberation of Grenada was similarly ridiculed as was the Republican president who engineered what seemed like a relatively miniscule setback in the inexorable march of Communism. Grenada was followed by major Communist setbacks in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Angola, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany and elsewhere.
In the larger scheme of things, the curious timing of second-guessing from certain quarters not heretofore known for their unflinching pro-life views should come as no surprise. No century has a monopoly on malcontents or myopia.
It doesn't even ban all third-trimester, only the most horrific ones, unspeakably gruesome procedures notorious for their singular savagery and barbarism.
Can you show me a doctor that says he can't do a D&X without exposing the navel? Can you show how this bill will ban D&E's, which are just as gruesome as D&X's?
I begin to wonder what truly motivates these people. Do they actually care about the unborn or is it just another tool for them to use in their vendetta against the President and Conservative Americans who refuse to grant their narrow views legitimacy?
Considering that Mercuria’s choice for the last Presidential election, buchanan, dropped any pretense to a pro-life plank, I find these sudden concerns for the welfare of the unborn disingenuous at the least.
If these people are really interested in protecting the unborn, why do the fabricate lies to try and turn pro-life voters against the only pro-life candidate running in 2004? This just demonstrates how vigilant voters are going to have to be this next election; it isn’t just the Democrats working very hard at defeating our President.
I begin to wonder what truly motivates these people. Do they actually care about the unborn or is it just another tool for them to use in their vendetta against the President and Conservative Americans who refuse to grant their narrow views legitimacy?
Considering that Mercuria’s choice for the last Presidential election, buchanan, dropped any pretense to a pro-life plank, I find these sudden concerns for the welfare of the unborn disingenuous at the least.
If these people are really interested in protecting the unborn, why do the fabricate lies to try and turn pro-life voters against the only pro-life candidate running in 2004? This just demonstrates how vigilant voters are going to have to be this next election; it isn’t just the Democrats working very hard at defeating our President.
I begin to wonder what truly motivates these people. Do they actually care about the unborn or is it just another tool for them to use in their vendetta against the President and Conservative Americans who refuse to grant their narrow views legitimacy?
Considering that Mercuria’s choice for the last Presidential election, buchanan, dropped any pretense to a pro-life plank, I find these sudden concerns for the welfare of the unborn disingenuous at the least.
If these people are really interested in protecting the unborn, why do the fabricate lies to try and turn pro-life voters against the only pro-life candidate running in 2004? This just demonstrates how vigilant voters are going to have to be this next election; it isn’t just the Democrats working very hard at defeating our President.