http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion will this be Bush's only saving grace. That the court upheld the ban on the barbaric practice of killing children under the premise that women have the right to torture and kill what comes out of her womb? quote from the article "The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion."
Hillary Clinton attacks Court decision, sees constitutional right to partial birth "abortion." 4/18/2007 From the Senate: Statement on Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart Decision 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."
Obama also thinks infanticide is a constitutional right. From his website. Today the Supreme Court upheld the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act." Here's Barack's response: I strongly disagree with todayâs 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 womanâs 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. ****************** This guy was Editor of the Harvard Law Review?
John Edwards thinks this is an issue for the 2008 election. I agree. All for infanticide vote for democrats, all others vote republican. Chapel Hill, North Carolina â 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."
I wish these extreme abortion advocates would explain how the mother's health is at issue when the baby is mostly delivered before being killed. quote from the article "The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion." It is clear that they are unwilling to accept any limitation, no matter how reasonable, on abortion. I can understand how people can differ about the morality of abortion when we are talking about very early term pregnancies where the baby is still more or less embryotic. I can't understand arguing it is morally acceptable to deliver a viable baby but kill it just before it fully emerges. Clinotn, Obama and Edwards all seem to think it is not only morally acceptable, but a constitutional right. Scary.
AAA: >I wish these extreme abortion advocates would explain >how the mother's health is at issue when the baby is >mostly delivered before being killed. Thought I am pro-choice to a point (a far point from partial-birth btw) I, like you, find a ton of hypocrisy in some folks position on pba. JB
That is an example of the kind of pictures the media will not publish or even allow pro life groups to publish in ads. Too graphic they say. CNN will show videos of our soldiers being killed by snipers. But not this. I'd love to see the democrat candidates be confronted with that picture in a debate and asked to justify their position.
I will make the website - What should the url be? or perhaps we do something on you tube. Lets come up with a strategy. I would think we should try and cut off the fringe from both sides. The country may be in favor of the right to choose when there is a rape or the moms life is really in danger - but not this. At the same time we could pick off some nuts from the republican side so no one could say we are hitmen for pat robertson.