SAD NEWS IN MISS BETH'S FAMILY--MISS BETH'S BROTHER SUPPORTS HILLARY!
When I asked my brother why he supported a woman who was for partial birth abortion, he said it came across on the news as she was "concerned for a woman's health". I explained the facts of life to him, particularly the fact that BJ himself was responsible for vetoing the ban during his tenure which led to this current Supreme Court ruling. Mr. Earl (Miss Beth's brother) wasn't aware of the ruling. Methinks Mr. Earl has been living in a cave the past week (not really, he has a nice home). He also suffers from FDS (Fox Derangement Syndrome) and we had a little tussle over that one.
Back to the issue at hand. PBA--in fact NO ABORTION PROCEDURE--has anything, I repeat ANYTHING to do with "the woman's health". None. Roe v. Wade wasn't even brought for that purpose. But it's been the best lie ever told to the American public to justify state sanctioned murder. Like P.T. Barnum said--"There's a sucker born every minute".
Too bad all those suckers have cost 48,000,000+ DEATHS since 1973.
Here is a VERY SMALL SYNOPSIS of Roe v. Wade. All emphasis is mine.
United States Supreme Court ruling: Roe v. Wade (1973):
Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's famous Roe v. Wade decision, abortions were permitted in certain states but banned in others. The court ruled in 1973 that, anywhere in the U.S.: 1
1). a woman and her doctor may freely decide to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester,
2). state governments can restrict abortion access after the first trimester with laws intended to protect the woman's health.
3). abortions after fetal viability must be available if the woman's health or life are at risk; state governments can prohibit other abortions.
The Roe v. Wade case involved a pregnant single woman ("Roe") who brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which prohibited any abortion except to save the woman's life. A married couple (the "Does") separately attacked the laws on the basis that an accidental pregnancy could find them unprepared for childbearing and could pose a hazard to the wife's health. The Does' appeal was rejected as being too speculative.
The Supreme court found that: "State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here..... violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy...
For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."
Subsequent court decisions defined the term "preservation of health" very broadly, to include such situations as a woman being suicidally depressed about being pregnant.
Mr. Justice Stewart issued a concurring statement which said in part: "Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas."
Mr. Justice Rhenquist issued a dissenting opinion. He noted that there was no proof that Roe was in her first trimester when she filed her original suite. He said: "While a party may vindicate his own constitutional rights, he may not seek vindication for the rights of others." Noting that an abortion requires the services of a physician, he felt that such an operation is "not 'private' in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the 'privacy' that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution." He felt that the court was not justified in declaring the entire Texas statute to be unconstitutional. Rather, it should have been declared unconstitutional as applied "to a particular plaintiff, but not unconstitutional as a whole."
"Roe" never did obtain an abortion.
(Above information obtained from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_supr.htm).
So, you see, Roe v. Wade was--in REALITY--about personal freedoms, not issues of maternal health.
********************
Now, how does Hillary view PBA? How do any of our crop of Presidential candidates view this form of murder?
Each in their own words, their reaction after the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion, Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion, Justice Ginsberg writing the dissenting opinion, April 18, 2007.
First, the Republicans:
Mitt Romney:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
Kevin Madden
(857) 288-6390
Boston, MA - Today, Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement praising the U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act: "Today, our nation's highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency. This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us." [Emphasis added]
Rudy Guiliani:
"The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion," Giuliani said in a statement on the 5-4 decision. "I agree with it." [Emphasis added]
[According to this article, when Giuliani ran for Senate in 2000, he said he would not vote to restrict a woman’s right to undergo the procedure [PBA]. So, one must wonder if Rudy has had a genuine change of heart, or an expedient, politically motivated one.]
Sam Brownbeck:
"I am very pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the ban on partial birth abortions. This ban was enacted to put an end to one of the most grotesque forms of abortion, and it is completely in line with the respect for life that is at the very heart of our Constitution. This is a great step forward for our nation’s citizens, born and unborn.” [Emphasis added]
John McCain:
For Immediate Release
April 18, 2007
Contact: Danny Diaz 703-650-5550
"Cherish The Sanctity Of Life:" Statement By Senator McCain
ARLINGTON, VA - U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today released the following statement:"Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life." [Emphasis added]
In reality, I don't think there is any significant difference between a late-term partial birth abortion and a late-term en utero abortion. In both cases, a living child, has its life taken from it. I guess the PBA "seems" more ghastly because the child is so close to being outside the mother's body, thus reaching the arbitrary point of medical and legal protection.
Tom Tancredo:
Tancredo Applauds Supreme Court Decision to End Late Term Abortions
4/17/2007
Contact: Alan Moore 703.255.9898
(Washington, D.C.)
Congressman Tom Tancredo (R- CO) rejoiced over today’s Supreme Court decision, ending partial birth abortions. In these abortions, usually performed late in a pregnancy, the infant’s skull is crushed and extracted from the womb.Today the Supreme Court put an end to this barbaric practice of infanticide, Tancredo said. One can only hope this is the first step towards ending the tragedy of abortions.This ruling, won by a 5-4 margin, is the first major victory for pro-life activists since Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were appointed to the Supreme Court. Both of them voted in the majority, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy.Congressman Tancredo concluded by saying, I am pleased the Court has finally begun to address the moral and intellectual travesty of Roe vs. Wade. [Emphasis added]
Now, the Democrats:
Barak Obama:
'I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women." [Emphasis added]
John Edwards:
John Edwards for President
Apr 18, 2007
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement about today's 5-4 Supreme Court ruling upholding the federal abortion ban."I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake - starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose." [Emphasis added]
[According to this press release, Senator Edwards believes it is vitally important that Democrats win the 2008 election so that they can preserve a woman's right to choose to have her baby partially delivered before killing it.]
In their own words courtesy of Pardon the Interruption, here: http://cdunning.blogspot.com/2007/04/18-presidential-candidates-speak.html
And on to Hillary. BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! Let's see what BJ did while in office!
This is HIS-STORY:
On December 7, 1995, the United States Senate passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act which would end partial-birth abortions by a margin of 54-44. House members voted 2-to-1 in favor of the ban, 288-139 [Republicans 215-15; Democrats 73-123; Independents 0-1]. When it reached the desk of President Bill Clinton on April 10, 1996, he vetoed the Act, thereby allowing the brutal procedure to continue with no restrictions.
In spite of testimony by medical experts to the contrary, Clinton justified his action with the claim that this procedure affects only hundreds of people and was necessary to protect the life and health of the mother - even though the abortionists themselves admitted its use was purely elective.
Once again on Oct. 8, 1997, the House passed a Partial Birth Abortion Ban by a veto-proof vote of 296-132. The Senate passed the bill in May (64-36), three votes less than the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override Clinton's veto. On Oct. 10, 1997, President Clinton again signed the veto papers, this time privately and without fanfare in the Oval Office. On July 23, 1998 the House again voted to override President Clinton's veto by a vote of 296-132.
Ban Passed into Law
On November 5, 2003, with Bill Clinton out of the way, President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S. 3) into law.
The partial-birth abortion procedure is used after 20 weeks (4 1/2 months) of pregnancy -- often to six months, seven months, and even later.
Critics have characterized Partial Birth Abortion as an unnecessarily brutal act that no one should tolerate. "You wouldn't treat an animal this way," Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde, R-Ill., one of the House's foremost abortion opponents, said during floor debate. Charles T. Canady, R-Fla., the bill's chief sponsor, said the procedure was perilously close to homicide.
"The only difference between the partial birth abortion and homicide is a mere three inches," said Rep. Charles T. Canady, R-Fla. "Most partial-birth abortions are performed on the healthy children of healthy mothers."
The "Health" Exception
The bill passed by Congress allows a partial-birth abortion to be performed if necessary to save a women's life. But pro-abortion groups and President Clinton also demand an exception for "health" abortions - a huge loophole that would allow partial-birth abortions for "emotional well-being" or "depression."
The late Dr. James McMahon, who performed abortions on all of the women who Bill Clinton paraded before the public when he vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban testified that only 9% of the 2,000 partial-birth abortions he performed involved "maternal health" [the most common being "depression"]. Another 56% were for "fetal flaws," ranging from trivial to grave; the most common being Down Syndrome. Over one-third involved neither fetal nor maternal indications, however trivial - in other words, "elective". [Emphasis mine]
Dr. Martin Haskell, who has performed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions, said that he performs them "routinely" for non-medical reasons, and that 80% are "purely elective." Medical experts testified before congressional committees that it is never necessary to kill a baby that has been allmost entirely delivered to preserve the life or health of the mother. The American Medical Association's board of trustees released a report in May 1997, saying there are no situations in which "intact dilation and extraction [known as partial-birth abortion] is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion." [Emphasis mine].
"Lied through my teeth"
In Feb. 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, a leader of the pro-abortion movement and Executive Director of America's National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted he had "lied through my teeth" in the ABC "Nightline" program in November 1995 about both the number of and the main reason for partial birth abortions. He now says there are far more partial birth abortions performed than was previously acknowledged, and on healthy women bearing healthy fetuses. It was Fitzsimmons' statistics which claimed only about 500 such abortions, which were cited by President Clinton when he vetoed the ban on partial birth abortions.
Surprise! Surprise! It turns out there are thousands of partial birth abortions performed every year (as many as 3,000 to 4,000 according to Fitzsimmons) - almost 1,500 in one New Jersey abortion clinic alone!
Above articles provided by The Jeremiah Project here: http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/partialbirthabortion.html
And Hillary? Her words:
From the Senate:
Statement on Supreme Court's
Gonzales v. Carhart Decision
4/18/2007
Washington, DC -- "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito." [Emphasis added]
[In discussions like this, I always wonder about the rights and lives of the children, the most vulnerable and unwilling participant of this activity. In this case of PBA, we're talking about a live baby that has its head all the way outside the mother's body; or, in the case of a forced breach birth, has all of its body save its head outside the mother's body. ]
Again, from Pardon My Interruption here: http://cdunning.blogspot.com/2007/04/08-presidential-candidates-speak.html
So--HORRORS!--Mr. Earl is working to get Hillary elected and by doing so, fully supports a woman's right to choose murder--and get away with it. Mr. Earl did not like this expose of Billary.
I don't care--I don't like murderers or their accomplices (Although I will still love Mr. Earl, even for making this horrific choice)
Sphere: Related Content
at
10:17 PM
|