[William Terrell]

First assumption, you don't know the political affiliation of the people who support the bill.

You're right. I assumed that you're a republican.

Second assumption, whether "these people" are concerned or not concerned.

Yes, I'd assumed the reaction to the "betrayal" position being a rapid support of Mr. Bush indicated you and others were concerned about the political aspects of the bill rather than whether it would work as advertised.

The bill bans what it defines as Partial Birth Abortions, lacking a legal definition of such, Congress was forced to define what exactly was being banned. Will it stop unscrupulous doctors from performing variations on PBA's? Not anymore than a complete ban on all abortions would stop unscrupulous doctors from performing abortions. It also clearly lays out a narrow definition of what PBA’s will be allowed; danger to the mother’s life.

Well, I think any doctor who performs a late term, or any, abortion is unscrupulous. My question is, will it prevent any late term abortions at all? The definition of the procedure is narrow. All an abortionist need do is do it another way, thereby vitiating the force of the "danger to the mother's life" clause.

I would like to see legislation that will halt late term abortions. It does not appear that this one will. It appears to be merely aimed at keeping pro-life people in the republican camp, when so many seem to be worried about republican commitment to their conservative principals.

I admit to being concerned about that myself, and I don't consider this bill to be a "betrayal" because I sympathize. The only real way to word the bill to work as intended is to specify the trimester being banned rather than the procedure being banned.

But, of course, if it's worded that way, the courts will throw it out because Roe turned on the 14th amendment's specification of "born or naturalized", so included any abortion prior to birth, even one second prior to birth.

That's why I sympathize but don't play the feel-good game. Roe is going to have to be clearly overturned or the power to confer citizenship is going to have to be returned exclusively to the states.

Until then, we are just fooling ourselves. I'm sorry if that offends you, Luis.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"You're right. I assumed that you're a republican."

No, you assumed that everyone who supported this was a Republican, you don't know that, and you weren't talking about me.

"Yes, I'd assumed the reaction to the "betrayal" position being a rapid support of Mr. Bush indicated you and others were concerned about the political aspects of the bill rather than whether it would work as advertised."

You again assumed that everyone who supports the bill, or doesn’t see the bill as a “betrayal” also supports Bush…you don’t know that either, so I was right about you making broadline assumptions and generalizations.

Now, I did notice your shift, you’re talking about late term abortions, this was never discussed when this bill was going through the legislative process, and the only thing that Bush ever spoke about was banning partial birth abortions…so what you are doing is giving everyone crap because this bill does not address late term abortions…it was never intended to, and had you been paying any attention at all the entire time this was being discussed in Congress, you would have not been “surprised” by the posting of a three month old article from a presidential candidate that needs to strip Bush of some votes in order to have any kind of relevancy.

That’s what kills me, you talk about me and others standing in support of this bill as a political ploy , yet, the ones who are obviously politicizing this are those condemning a bill they never read until it was passed. Where the hell was all the activism before this point?

You, Uncle Bill, Merc, and the bunch over at LostPriviledges.com don’t give a rat’s ass about the aborted babies, this is politics to you all.