http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070418/D8OJ2NI80.html

I already posted this on another thread

Yep. You have no idea how many pro-choice people (especially women) I begged to vote for Gore and not Nader in 2000, using the Abortion issue as the biggest push. "Oh, they'll neeeeeeever make abortion illegal - NEVER! You're just trying to scare us," I was told by more than one woman. Riiiiiiiight.

Andrew

No one is making abortion illegal, their just preventing one ghastly procedure.

But if you want to make the next election about abortion, I'm all for it!

I noticed all of the Democrat candidates had a negative response to the ruling. I can't believe these candidates are for letting a child come part way out of the mother, then sticking an ice pick into it's head to kill it. Unbelievable.

For some strange reason, democrats insist on the right to snuff out life, be it the unborn, the elderly and the infirmed.

They have indeed become the death party.

Herb

Deane writes:
I noticed all of the Democrat candidates had a negative response to the ruling. I can't believe these candidates are for letting a child come part way out of the mother, then sticking an ice pick into it's head to kill it. Unbelievable.

Which candidates? I didn't hear a single one of them come out in favor of late term abortion. I'm certainly not in favor of it. It's a horrible procedure and also very rare - done to save the life of the mother or abort a horribly deformed fetus. Of course, I believe families and doctors , not politicians, should make this kind of heart-wrenching medical decision, but I guess you guys like more government in our lives.

Andrew

I have never seen an explanation how a partial birth abortion, can help a mothers health.

The baby is 95% born, then they hold everything, while they put an Ice pick in the baby's head.

I agree Dean. Women can still have an abortion under this ruling, just not when the baby is almost ready to be born. how discusting!

"I didn't hear a single one of them come out in favor of late term abortion."

Oh, really? As Mrs. Clinton would say, "Not so fast."

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1451

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/200700418-federal-ban/

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CZsK

These "leaders" are shocked that killing an unborn child is restricted, so that in their final minutes before birth, he or she is protected from being killed.

We're definitely slouching toward Gomorrah. If God doesn't judge us harshly for the innocent deaths of millions, some might suggest that He owes Sodom an apology.

Herb

I don't care for late term abortion. Actually I'm not really for abortion to begin with. But as Andrew has stated the decision belongs to the woman, doctor and if possible family members to make sure whatever decision is made, it's an educated one.

This isnt just late term, in some cases the baby can even be breathing on its own.

As long as the crown of the head hasn't emerged, they can kill the baby!

Well, since we all know God is a Republican, I'm sure he'll straighten this all out, get Congress back on the right side, and put another Repub in the Presidency, so that the world will be okay, once again.

Nwokie-
Here's another deeply disturbing fact. 30,000 children died today of preventable starvation. Most likely they were all breathing and very hungry before they died. That's nearly 11 million children dying needlessly each year, and worst of all it doesn't need to happen.

Why the religious right seems solely bent on abortion and gay marriage as the TWO big issues in today's political climate is truly sad.

Chris, how can killing a baby be an educated decision? I'm sort of surprised with your position.

Deane-To me this is a private matter. If I had to make the decision I would choose to not abort. But that is only my decision.

If a woman knows all the medical information and still chooses to abort than that is her decision. I don't believe you can legislate something so private.

But as I have said in the past if you truly want get rid of abortion, make sure men don't put sperm in a women's body to begin with.

"For some strange reason, democrats insist on the right to snuff out life, be it the unborn, the elderly and the infirmed.

They have indeed become the death party.

Herb"


Republicans only kill Iraqi babies and U.S. soldiers.

US soldiers probably kill more Iraqi babies and young children than late-term abortions do.

Wait a minute everybody. The law that was ruled on is for a proceedure that happens between the third and sixth month of pregnancy.

So can we get some of you to change your comments?

Chris,
Choosing to beat your kids, for example, is not a "personal choice" because there is another party involved who isn't able to make a choice, and is victimized by your actions. I've always justified my opinion that abortion should not be legal by using this logic to brush off the "personal choice" nonsense. and by the way, I'm not religious. I thought I'd throw that out there before someone accuses me of being religiously motivated.

Chris, we just happen to disagree. Killing to me is not a private matter. If a women doesn't want to have a child, she should prevent the pregnancy in the first place.

It's all part of people wanting to do whatever they wish to at any time and have no consequences. I came from a different era.

"If a WOMEN (sic) doesn't want to have a child, SHE should prevent the pregnancy in the first place."

A different era, for sure. These days it's a WOMAN and a MAN's responsibilty to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

Thankfully the "morning after pill" is now available over the counter.

Given that some of the rhetoric here may be moot (as Saveitnow pointed out, this ruling is about the 3-6 month mark in a pregnancy), let me still stay that I'm appalled that so many of you on the right so easily embrace the non-sensical stereotypes of 1) a woman carrying a fetus to 8.9 months and then deciding she wants to abort it just before birth and 2) bloodthirsty abortion doctors clamoring perform the procedure "with an icepick." These stereotypes sound like Ronald's Reagan's story of a welfare queen driving a brand new Cadilac - never found to exist. But a lot of people sure were willing to believe it without much rational thought.

The truth is, even Bill Clinton wanted a law to ban late term abortions - as long as the health of the mother and the health of the fetus were taken into account. Clinton knew of course that such a law was pretty much meaningless because you can't generally find a legally practicing doctor willing to perform an aborton on a healthy featus and healthy mother anyway late in pregancy. (Your false stereotypes aside.)

But how about this: if two doctors can determine that a fetus is healthy and could survive outside the woman's body after, say, 7 months, and the woman wants an abortion that the fetus be delivered by C-section, taken from the woman, and then cared for by the state. Of course, that means some taxpayer money would be needed to care for a premature baby in an incubator. Herb, you willing to pony up for that? How many $100,000 hospital bills are you willing to spring for?

Andrew

I don't know about Bill, but Hillary is definitely against the ban. I believe she calls it "an erosion of our constitutional rights". She doesn't seem to care too much about the baby's constitutional rights, but then it wouldn't be able to vote soon anyway, so who needs it.

"US soldiers probably kill more Iraqi babies and young children than late-term abortions do."

Your disgusting comments about our military is sickening.

Millions upon millions of innocent unborn children have been killed, and you choose to denigrate our brave soldiers fighting terror?

Ted Kennedy killed more people with his car than all the soldiers in Abu Gharib. That score? 1 to zero.

Keep it up, and you will fail miserably in 2008.

Herb

Deane writes:
I don't know about Bill, but Hillary is definitely against the ban.

Being against the ban and in favor of the procedure are two different things. I think the procedure is awful and would not be in favor of it, but that doesn't mean I favor putting Alberto Gonzales in charge of that decision instead of doctors and families.

It may be disgusting and sickening, but unfortunately it's true. Don't kill the messenger, Herb.

And you seriously think NOBODY was killed at Abu Gharib(sic) by US? C'mon, That's just plain ignorant.

Deane and Andrew- thanks for giving me things to think about.

Mrs. Merkin, show us evidence. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

I refuse to blame America first, especially when dealing with enemy combatants who wear no uniform, represent no country and would kill me or you just as fast as they murdered 3,000 innocent citizens on 9/11. Golda Meir said it best:

"Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us."

Herb

Herb- Actually Martin Luther King Jr. said it best:

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."

Wow, this topic is just a minefield. I think we all know where we all stand and nobody is ever gonna be convinced to change by other radio geeks.

Old joke time:

If two storks bring two babies,
And three storks bring three babies,
What brings no babies?

Two swallows.

Bada bing!!

This is why I won't vote GOP anymore. I want to be really clear and state it's not the decision that is worrysome, but how we got here.

That court decision contradicts a lot of established case law. Why?

Because the GOP is court stacking to get it's way. Think of it like winning a sports game by making sure all the officials see things your way. Had the process worked as it should, as in with the checks and balances built into it, we would not have seen this particular decision. Or if we did, we would understand it to be a solid one that our discourse resulted in.

So, this clearly demonstrates our American experiment has failed to a degree. The GOP has not engaged in discourse. No ideological victory was achieved today. We have no greater understanding of this matter than we did before.

Instead of actually engaging one another, we are moving toward a state where we fight one another, losing what we have here in the process. Nicely done people.

Think hard about that, and the implications it has for all of us going forward. What it means is that all it takes to bend this nation to your will is to get enough sell-outs in your corner to survive!

Whatever your issue is, getting some progress on it this way is not the right answer. Why?

Because we end up divided, having to deal with a comprimized government that will only enable our own exploitation that much quicker. Today it's your issue, tomorrow it may be mine, but eventually we all will lose as pawns always do.

Go ahead, cheer for the winning side! Do you know what that is? I don't.

You would think it is the pro-life camp, but you would be wrong. The reality is much darker than that in that those that would undo our Republic, pervert it and bastardize it for their own ends, really don't mind handing a bone or two to who ever is foolish enough to bite for some tempoary gratification.

What I think about this issue is moot. It's all been written here before, so go back and read it. That's not my point at all.

Actually, the decision could be the right one, but we wouldn't know would we? Kind of tough to know justice has been served when our courts have been biased and manupulated isn't it?

Somebody here said, "Nothing else matters but fighting terror and getting those conservative court appointments." Well, there you go. Mission accomplished in part!

All of you take a moment and think hard again about this. Your position on this is not the point. How we arrived here is.

Essentially, divisive statements like this, backed by dollars, can and will devalue this nation and impact all of our lives in a negative way. When we see these kinds of things, we know that we do not matter.

I'll say it again. We do not matter!

This decision is the result of a lot of hard work. The world burns, but that does not matter. We are being bankrupted, but that does not matter. Our kids are fighting for oil and to fill already full coffers, and that does not matter.

This decision really does not matter, unless we the people actually matter. See how that all works?

Probably not.

nwokie sez: "ghastly"

the troll sez: "disgusting"

When someone uses an emotional plea in an argument, its your cue to disregard the entire post.

the troll sez: "you will fail miserably in 2008"

the troll sez in the summer '06: 'you will fail miserably in 2006'

"Mrs. Merkin, show us evidence."

Oh, for cripe's sake Herb, are you that lazy? Type in "Abu Graib Deaths" into Google or Wiki and see the plethora that comes up. There's so much there and I need to go to bed. Enjoy!

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/01/25/my_late_term_abort ion/?page=full

Set aside your ideology for a moment and consider yourself being faced with the choice this couple had to make.

I would absolutely do what they did. I don't think I know anybody who wouldn't. This is like the petri dish bit. Save the young girl from the burning building, or grab that dish with 5 lives in it, thinking you came out ahead.

(nobody picks the dish either --nobody.)

After reading this thread and considering the noise out there on this decision, I've come to the realization this is all about using shock, horror and just plain ugly to make some progress that is a whole lot less than honest.

We don't need this law. We have it with means and methods described in my post above. Now it's gonna cause trouble for those few people, who are faced with tough decisions.

Does this law make it easier now?

Could this woman just sit back and trust the lifers and legislators pre-decision and have no worries? Surely they will step up and invest in the care her malformed child is gonna need right?

These same people, willing to do anything to make these choices for others (remember, nothing else matters folks!), are the same people talking about personal responsibility, smaller government and generally keeping law out of our lives.

All things I strongly agree with, BTW!

I know what I would do, as that husband. Law or no, I would talk with my wife and a decision would be made. Then I would travel, where ever it takes to be where dogma and politics do not trump the human condition. I would do what it takes to find peace and do what makes sense.

Some may not be able to do this. What then? Suicide? Potentially, this could happen. I can imagine a woman torn between her own life and the pain she and a newborn child would have to endure. Maybe entering a world like this one is not such a good idea, particularly one where we decide fates to satisfy dogma.

Forced childbirth is wrong. Sometimes it's abused, sometimes it's not. Do those people, far removed from the situation, have enough relevance to actually make the call before hand?

To me, that's the question here.

Faced with politics over medical doctors, I'm gonna pick the doctor, who values life enough to devote their own to preserving it and improving the value of it.

Think again about what you would really do, faced with this ugly choice. Then think about the abolute nature of law and it's delicate balance with freedom necessary for all of us to live our lives.

I know this is a shock and awe post. It's ugly, but hey we got here with a lot of people pounding the ugly drum. Shouldn't we then consider all kinds of ugly and not just the uglies that advance agendas and promote ideologies over one another then?

Well said, KSKD. As always.

As I've said before, Bill Clinton had the best agenda for the whole abortion debate I can ever remember hearing - "Abortion should be safe, legal ... and rare."

I know I am going to get a smidge off-topic here, but some stats show just how much work is to be done by us as a society on teenage births in this case ... and for all to see what a burden that so many teenage births are putting on the system.

In 2004, there were 0.7 births per 1000 teenage females.

Now a breakdown by ethnic background:

Caucasian teenagers - 0.2 per 1000.
African Americans - 1.6 per 1000.
American Indian - 0.9
Asian-Americans - 0.2
Hispanic - 1.3

(source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr55/nvsr55_01.pdf)

The largest segment of the population is having by far the smallest segment of teenage births. Segments that are statistically proven to be much less affluent, and without the education background and often the family structure, have up to EIGHT TIMES the rate of teenage births in this country. All too often, they don't have knowledge of contraceptives or access to them, and they certainly don't have access to family planning centers or abortion clinics. Again, think about the strain on the system here!

My wife had her oldest son when she was 16. Even though the biological father wanted nothing to do with him, despite the fact that her mother was deadset against the pregnancy (but more deadset against abortion, like any good Catholic!), despite the fact that she lived in a rural area of Southern Oregon with no facilities for people like her, she had him. He is now 19 and has turned out well.

This seems to be the exception, rather than the rule, and my wife says she would not wish it upon ANYONE, EVER!!! (And you better damn well believe that we keep him and his girlfriend stocked up quite well with contraceptives!)

We're now having the discussions with our daughter, who will turn 12 in June. Again, we want to make sure that they don't have to go through this.

Many families sadly don't have this going on in their homes, and it's all too often ethnic minorities that have the majority of teenage births going on. All these pro-lifers beat their "sanctity of life" drum and jut out their chests, but at the same time what is the sanctity of life for someone who spends their entire childhood in abject poverty, in an environment in the slums of cities surrounded with the problems that they have, or in foster or state care?!? Are we REALLY giving that person a chance to succeed! Are we REALLY giving them the tools they need to not make their own poor judgement decisions down the road?

Abortion sucks, and I don't think that there is a single person here, left or right, who would disagree with me on that. It has deeply affected me personally, and I was very angry for a long time. But think about the alternatives sometimes. It would be nice if each child could find a good adoptive home, if each and every child came out with that American Dream chance. Reality says otherwise, sadly.

Throw in the towel if you wish.

But don't cast aspersions on those who happen to place a higher value on the unborn than you choose to.

Herb

I'm not throwing in the towel Herb, I'm just throwing out statistics and throwing out how it is.

If you want to solely recognize the Catholic Church and the Bush Administration's mantra of the only legitimate contraception is abstinence, go right ahead. The rest of us that live in reality land will see otherwise.

Court stacking, thats the biggest lie from the demos. All administrations appoint judges of thier political beliefs. Court stacking is what Roosevelt (a demo) tried, by trying to add 3 judge positions.

(FYI - Herb doesn't recognize the Catholic church. See his previous responses to CT)

Thank you, Mrs. Merkin for setting Brianl straight.

As you correctly pointed out, I don't carry water for the pope, nor am I even a Bush guy, having voted for Alan Keyes in the Republican primary.

Herb

For me, this decision boils down to a simple question.

Who is more qualified to decide whether this procedure is necessary, a doctor who is well informed about the particular case, or a group of legislators who know ABOSOLUTELY NOTHING about it? Not one single iota? Not one fact?

Doctors should make medical decisions, not legislators. Making a blanket decision about whether a medical procedure is necessary without considering any facts about the case is *wrong*.

In every case, where this procedure is performed, it is for the "mental" health of the mother, not the physical.

Stopping a delivery, with the baby 95% delivered, so you can stick an ice pick in its head then vacume out its brains, does not hep the mothers physical condition.

Wrong question.
This is more like it:

"Who is more qualified to decide whether killing the unborn is necessary, a doctor who PROFITS FROM IT?"

Herb

Question should be, whos protecting the baby? Obviously not the doctor or mother!

Okie- And your source for this "information"? Sounds like grade A BS to me.

Since we're talking about 2nd trimester pregnancies here, I assume you consider a miscarriage a "delivery"?

You are saying that you believe doctors are not qualified to evaluate the mental health of the mother, or that the mental health of the mother is not relevant? Which is it?

By the way, there is no such thing as a "partial birth abortion" in the medical world. That is a propaganda term invented to stir your emotions.

Herb- Since you apparently believe that all doctors are morally corrupt, why not promote enforcement of medical ethics, so that all medical decisions can be morally sound, rather than only this one particular type of medical decision?

Both of you- Am I correct in my impression that you believe unborn children need protection from their parents and doctors, but once they are born they are on their own? If I'm wrong, please explain how. What do you do to help all the unwanted, neglected, abused and/or starving children *already* born?

To summarize- you believe that the legislators can be trusted to make the correct decision(with no facts about the case) more than the parents or doctors? You believe that legislators are mroe morally sound than doctors and parents?

http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html

No were talking about trimester abortions.
There are partial birth abortions performed as late as 8 months.
Partial birth abortion, is the common name.
and as the court ruled, it is never medically required.

Saveitnow- sorry to contradict, but according to this:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

The statute makes no mention of *when*(what trimester) the procedure is performed.

and Okie: You guys are posting too fast for me to keep up (I have a job). I believe I edited my last post after you replied to it. Can you address some of the questions I asked?

Also, your claim that *all* of these procedures are based on the mental health of the mother is not factual. The only evidence provided states that *most* procedures done *in Kansas* were for the mental health of the mother. No statistics exist for other states, so your claim that *all* were done for mental health reasons is speculative.

Last thing: the court didn't *rule* that it is never medically required, Congress *decided* that. My question to you is this: do you want legislators to make your medical decisions for you? This sets a dangerous precident.

I still haven't heard any of you conservatives answer this question:

If a woman should be forced to take a pregnancy to term even though it could kill her...and the alternative is a premature C-section delivery that could put the baby (if it survives) in an incubator and lead to serious health problems later in life - or if the baby would be severely retarded and require thousands of dollars of costs in medical care...would YOU will be willing to spend your taxpayer dollars paying all these extra medical bills? (That is, increase your taxes to pay all these extra medical bills.) Or should an at-risk pregnant woman just risk death because politicians have decided that she can't be allowed to have a late term abortion regardless of her health or the health of the fetus?

Increased taxes for medical care due to this law - yes or no?

Andrew

Your assumptions are hypothetically rare at best and simply fallacious at worst.

But even if they were true, you're essentially saying that since a child may have health issues, the answer is to simply kill him or her.

Not all of us are willing to sacrifice innocents.

Herb

Herb writes:
Your assumptions are hypothetically rare at best and simply fallacious at worst.

But even if they were true, you're essentially saying that since a child may have health issues, the answer is to simply kill him or her.


Nope, never said it. And you completely ducked my question (what a surprise - you've never done THAT before!).

But, it seems clear that as a result of this new law being upheld by the Supreme Court, that women will now be forced to make decisions that either increase risks to their health or incur huge new medical bills (or both). My question, AGAIN - if you have the courage to answer directly for a change - is: will **YOU** be willing to pay higher taxes to help these families with their astronomical medical bills and perhaps the crippling cost of caring for a severely retarded baby? If not, what do you think such families/women should do to pay these bills? Declare bankruptcy?

Just trying to see what your "pro-family position" is...

Andrew

"...if you have the courage to answer directly for a change - is: will **YOU** be willing to pay higher taxes to help these families with their astronomical medical bills and perhaps the crippling cost of caring for a severely retarded baby?"

Yes, and for a variety of reasons.

Herb

Good for you, Herb! I challenge you to contact your Congressman and two Senators and tell them the following: You support the ban on this type of abortion passed the by Congress that the Supreme Court recently upheld, and you urge them to pass a law providing free government health care - paid for by a tax increase - for women and babies whose health is affected due to late-pregancy complications, which can no longer be avoided with a late term abortion. I also urge you to get your fellow pro-lifers to support such a bill.

Andrew

If you examine the opinions published by SCOTUS, they do not provide adequate support for the idea that they are qualified, or relevant enough to actually make law that is sound.

In addition, two of the justices signed a document essentially stating their intention to dismantle Roe.

This is political.

I second that challenge.

"Court stacking, thats the biggest lie"

I'm open to discussion on this, but I don't think it's a lie.

I'll crack open another thread... Gimme a bit to think about what 'court stacking' first. --or jump right in, I'll go with it.

Wait a minute.

You guys practically worship at the altar of FDR and the "New Deal."

Like President Bush, Mr. Roosevelt was a good guy, but he packed the Supreme Court.

If you want to complain about packing the courts, how about some consistency?

Herb

think about this people:

george w bush has shown that he is good at two things : 1) appointing complete buffoons to positions of authority and 2) disregarding the consituation.

his supreme court appointees are no exceptions.

Herb writes:
You guys practically worship at the altar of FDR and the "New Deal."

To whom are you referring to by "you guys?"

Like President Bush, Mr. Roosevelt was a good guy, but he packed the Supreme Court.

Er, no he didn't. FDR tried to pack the court in an ill-advised scheme to overcome several key defeats of his New Deal legislation in the Supreme Court, but Congress (which has the authority to determine the number of Supreme Court justices) didn't buy it. Even FDR's greatest defenders agree that this attempt to stack the court by FDR was a huge overreach and a mistake.

Andrew

"You guys" must mean Liberals???
What a blanket statement....
But that's what neo-CONs are good for..... And sending kids to die for no good reason.

>>>" disregarding the consituation."

How has he done this?

">>>" disregarding the consituation."

How has he done this?"

There isn't enough time in a day to go over how George W. Bush has circumvented the Constitution in an attempt to turn this into a monarchy.

>>>"There isn't enough time in a day to go over how George W. Bush has circumvented the Constitution in an attempt to turn this into a monarchy."

I didn't think anyone would want to try come up with anything.

It's been done, here and elsewhere at lot.

No need to try and imply this (P)resident is not doing this.

Deane, if Fox were around in the 1930s, they would be telling us that Adolf Hitler had a nice moustache and thriving domestic policy.

Perhaps it would be unfair to overwhelm you with a mountain of common knowledge, so I will narrow the focus. Of the many unjust changes to our liberties, here is just one eensy weensy thing the Constitution guaranteed before this administration, Habeas Corpus:

http://www.constitution.org/eng/habcorpa.htm

The concept of Habeas Corpus was first suggested in the Magna Carta in 1215, and as you can see, was adopted by the British in 1679. It is an old and noble idea that was also embraced by our forefathers. It is a cornerstone of a true Democracy.

Study the "Military Commission’s Act" that was passed by the GOP controlled Congress on September 28, 2006 and rubber stamped by the shrub. Then, knowing the facts about just one of many infringements on our rights, tell us all how that single piece of legislation embraces our Constitution and keeps our liberties intact.

We have never granted Habas Corpus to military prisoners, in a conflict.

I can just see it now, a VC surrenders, and you have to read him is rights and assign him a lawyer.

DJ: "I didn't think anyone would want to try come up with anything."

It's just too easy. Google "Bush Constitution" and you immediately get 14,100,000 hits. Like this classic gem:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

Bush on the Constitution: "Just a goddamned piece of paper"
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 06:39

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've heard from two White House sources who claim they heard from others present in the meeting that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."

The record shows the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn't matter if you are a Democratic, Republican or Independent. It doesn't matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine - in the end - if something is legal or right.

Every federal official - including the President - who takes an oath of office swears to "uphold and defend" the Constitution of the United States.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a "living document."

http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/articles/articles06/Starr-BushConstitution-3-06. htm

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060402-112827-5127r.htm

Have fun with the other 14,099,997 articles.

Please let me know if you find any that say "You're doing a heckuva job, Georgie!"

That's what Geneva is all about.

Of course, we tossed that easily enough too.

All ramblings by annoyed libs, none give any substantial claims.

And your 14,000,000 links are all self supporting, people , crying in their latties.

Glad you took the time to look. You sure read fast.

And you know it's "latte", not "lattie", I was behind you in line yesterday.

Mrs. I'll have a 3 shot 20 oz. sugar-free vanilla skinny extra-hot latte.

I want my coffee hot and black.

I want my Constitution, like my coffee, left the fuck alone.

Mrs. Merkin represents the latte crowd and they like their Constitution without any soy, whipped cream or backtalk.

A majority of tea drinkers remember why so much of their favorite beverage floated in the harbor.

Heck, even the flask at work crowd loves our Bill of Rights.

Huh, remind me, who doesn't want to be free?

I want the constiturion to be read exactly how it is written, not have hidden "rights" found in it.

I do not want the US supreme court baseing law on anything , but the US constitution!

Missing, all you're referring to are BS articles written be disenchanted liberals, but none have any basis in fact. Anybody can write anything. And most Kool-Aid drinkers will suck it up like a 14 year old kid sucking a good rich chocolate malt through a straw.

A joke I heard either Letterman or Leno use a long time ago (10 years at least!) but still fits very well today;

"A lot of people are sending their Congressmen and Representatives tea bags to let them know how they feel about things in Washington.

If we really wanted them to know how we feel, we should send them condoms!"

How very true!

Along with the government, we should be sending them to the oil companies too!

No. It's about a growing number of pissed Americans.

Sorry Deane, but this is not a liberal thing no more than the (P)resident embodies conservative.

The drumbeat for impeachment is getting a little louder. The state of Vermont is only the beginning.

I think a full-on impeachment proceedings of Bush/Cheney would not be to the country's benefit, however, I think it would help bring to light to those still left in the dark (those in front of Fox News monitors) what a colossal failure the Bush/Cheney administration has been.

The only people clamoring for a Clinton impeachment in '98 were the Republicans in Congress. Today, the Democratic Congress is being pretty quiet about impeachment even though their list of grievances against Bush is at least as egregious as the ones that Republicans had against Clinton.

Today the call fro impeachment is coming more from the grass roots, the local town halls, the chambers of state goverments. I think this alone is very telling...

Until there are 67 solid votes in the US Senate supporting impeachment of both Bush and Cheney, there's no reason even to bring it up. It's more than a waste of time - it's a distraction and counter-productive. I think Bush and Cheney should both be impeached and removed for Iraq alone but unless there are 67 solid votes, not even worth talking about talking about it.

Andrew

Think of the way it kept Clinton off his game for about a year...one purpose it might serve is to distract Bush from implementing additional "winning" strategies in Iraq, more privatization of essential government services, etc. And if he can't actually get convicted in the Senate, at least he would have a Andrew Johnson-type stain on his record, and the right would be denied the pleasure of crowing about Clinton being the only impeached president in modern times...

Yea, yea - you're right though. A guilty pleasure, but not realistic.

The whole Ken Starr thing came back to bite the Republicans in the ass. Let's remember, they lost seats in the 1998 mid-term elections - something that rarely happens (yeah, it happened in 2002 also, but that was in the weird post-9/11 pre-Iraq war time). And AFTER losing in that election, the lame duck Republican congress impeached Clinton.

There are too many other things the Democrats in the Congress should be worried about now besides a completely pointless impeachment exercise.

Andrew

Democrats have no clear plan to lead, so they go after a lame duck.

If they continue this vacuous path, 2008 ought to be great for conservatives. A few more supreme court nominations and we'll have Roe v. Wade overturned for sure!

Herb

I think you already have Roe v Wade effectively neutered if you ask me. This Court is not going to be able swing left for a long time pending the health of the current conservative justices, no matter who is president. The best Democrats can hope for is keeping it even for the next decade or two. During that time a few states at least will be challenging Roe v. Wade. I think we're definitely going to see a continued decline in abortion rights in America for a long time to time.

I blame all those pro-choice idiots who voted for Nader in 2000 all while saying abortion would NEVER be made illegal, while mindlessly parroting the "Bush and Gore are just the same" idiocy for this mess. Well, I'm not a woman so I guess I don't have to worry about it. A lot of young women who voted for Nader in 2000 probably will someday and that's kinda sad.

Andrew

That a leftist justice like Ruth Bader Ginsberg would so eagerly defend a woman's "right" to crush the skull of an infant shows how out of touch some liberals have become.

A recent ABC News poll shows that 69% of Americans favor banning partial birth abortion. That's a healthy 2/3 majority by any measure. The left and its candidates are truly being run by the fringe.

And the gun issue isn't likely to help democrats, either. I heard today that 42% of democrat households have guns.

Herb

Herb writes:
That a leftist justice like Ruth Bader Ginsberg would so eagerly defend a woman's "right" to crush the skull of an infant shows how out of touch some liberals have become.

And some front-runner Republican presidental candidates like Rudy "great" Giuliani...

A recent ABC News poll shows that 69% of Americans favor banning partial birth abortion. That's a healthy 2/3 majority by any measure. The left and its candidates are truly being run by the fringe.

What was the percentage when an exception was included/excluded for the life of the mother or the condition of the fetus? Because with that exception, Bill Clinton wanted such a ban, too, and so would I (meaningless since the procedure is so rare and it's generally for health of the mother/condition of the fetus).

How would the majority of the American public feel about aborting a brain-dead fetus, which is now banned by this law? Given the way polls showed Americans overwhelmingly against keeping Terry Schiavo alive, I'm guessing similar numbers would want an exception for the condition of the fetus in such abortions.

Show me a poll that has those different options given to the participants and we'll talk.

Andrew

Skep:
"george w bush has shown that he is good at two things : 1) appointing complete buffoons to positions of authority and 2) disregarding the consituation."

BrianL:
"There isn't enough time in a day to go over how George W. Bush has circumvented the Constitution in an attempt to turn this into a monarchy."

DJ:
"I didn't think anyone would want to try come up with anything."

Missing_kskd:
"It's been done, here and elsewhere at lot. No need to try and imply this (P)resident is not doing this."

So I tried and got this from you two:

"...you're referring to are BS articles written be disenchanted liberals, but none have any basis in fact. Anybody can write anything."

"All ramblings by annoyed libs, none give any substantial claims. And your 14,000,000 links are all self supporting, people , crying in their latties."

Well, all righty then. I challenge you both, DJ and Okie (and Herb?) to find something/anything positive from those 14+ million articles to support Bush's "heckuvajob", reverence, support, or adherance to the US Constitution. Is that even possible?

And there it is!

Just be warned, that same query has been posted here REPEATEDLY, over a multi-year time span.

Result: NOTHING.

There are no stories of this kind because this (P)resident is simply not there. Anyone publishing such a piece would be duly labled either the liar or fool they are.

Have at it guys. This (P)resident sucks ass. Everybody knows it. Some of us continue to deny it, hoping we will get some pet issues legislated out of the deal.

If I understand the question, there have been no attacks on US soil since 9/11.

Wave that away if you wish. However, we all know how you'd be crowing incessantly about that single fact, were a democrat in the White House.

Herbert Milhous Nixon III

Like I said.

NOTHING.

What has President Bush done?
1. He removed a government that actively supported the 911 terrorists.

2. He removed another government that was a direct threat to vital US interests.

3. He has increased the number of jobs in the US to record levels, as well as created an economic climate for the stock market to hit record hights.

4. He has appointed Supreme Court judges, that have at least brought the court system back to its original intent.

5. He has made the majority of the demo/lib leaders look ling inept clowns.

No wonder the left is seen as soft on terror.

We effectively battle the dastardly evil-doers of 9/11 and to you, that's NOTHING?

I can't wait until 2008.

Herb

All ramblings by annoyed neo-CONers, none give any substantial claims or FACTS.

Herb- to help you pull your head out of [sand|ass] for just a moment...
a) "effectively" toppled a terrorist "government" in Afghanistan, while incompetently allowing the true evil-doers to get away, and then incompetently allowed them to rebuild their strength.
b) "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." George W. Bush.

Which of those was the effective battling of evil-doers?

Just because there hasn't been another attack yet, is not evidence of effective prevention of said attack. It's well established that these people are VERY patient. How many years elapsed between the first and 2nd attacks on the WTC?

"dastardly evil-doers" indeed. It all makes sense now... you live in a black-and-white comic-book world.

Herb said>>>>
We effectively battle the dastardly evil-doers of 9/11 and to you, that's NOTHING?

To INVADE Iraq ILLEGALLY??? Iraq wasn't the EVIL DOERS!!!! Osama and his band of assholes was! Why are we NOT concentrating on him????
IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 FOR THE 800TH TRILLION TIME!!!!!!!!

I didnt say Saddam had anything to do with 911, I said he was a threat to US interests.

and as to some getting away, I guess you think WWII was a failure because some top Nazis got away? Heck there is no proof Hitler died in that bunker.

To you EVERYONE that doesn't believe in YOUR way is a threat!
Germany was a centralized location in the world and we fought them on their turf. This bunch of asses don't have a country. So your going to spend every penny we have and every young man and women we have in the armed services to blow the living crap out of ANY country that might be a threat to US (OIL) interests? So whom is next? India? China? Russia? Libya? Saudi Arabia?

You got it, "On their turf", we didnt want waffen SS tanks over here. Just as its better to kill terrorists in other countries, than have to fight them here!

Glad to see a liberal finally wising up!

NOTHING.

AGAIN, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED ABOUT AN(Y) ONLINE ARTICLE SHOWING "BUSH AND THE CONSTITUTION" IN A POSITIVE LIGHT.

(That means not your personal opinion)

P.S. And once again, Trix is NOT a liberal. Duh.

Nwokie loses once again...

LIBERAL???

Nwokie you have to start using your head besides something to grow hair on.

I've a TRUE Republican and just because I don't believe in what DUHbya is doing doesn't make me otherwise.
Wise up there bud!

"What has President Bush done?
1. He removed a government that actively supported the 911 terrorists."

And by the looks of things, the Taliban is starting to get a pretty good foothold again in Afghanistan. If we had diverted all of our attention and troops to where they SHOULD have been, we wouldn't be talking about this right now.

"2. He removed another government that was a direct threat to vital US interests."

How exactly was Saddam threatening US interests in such a fashion that he HAD to be removed? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he's gone, but is 3,000 US casualties, 600,000 Iraqi casualties, a country in civil war, and the starting of ethnic cleansing, all over shoddy intelligence that was force-fed down our throats, WORTH IT?!? Hells bells, we have the Vietnam of the Middle East here and it is 100 percent Bush's doing and 100 percent Bush's fault.


"3. He has increased the number of jobs in the US to record levels, as well as created an economic climate for the stock market to hit record hights."

While the number of jobs has increased, the average wage has not adjusted for inflation. There are LESS manufacturing jobs in this country, blue-collar jobs, than there were when Bush took office. The vast majority of job growth has occurred in the service industry. Guess what, the 25 people I have working for me for minimum wage fall under the service industry. I WILL give you the home construction boom and real estate boom, but that is, IMO, more in line with the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates to all-time lows to jump-start the post 9/11 economy, and making it such a buyers market ... than anything Bush did.

"4. He has appointed Supreme Court judges, that have at least brought the court system back to its original intent."

Yeah, and he has probably set civil rights and women's rights back 100 years with his appointees. The Supreme Court's job is to INTERPRET the Constitution. Bush does a damn good job of IGNORING the Constitution.

"5. He has made the majority of the demo/lib leaders look ling inept clowns."

How so? He has made HIMSELF look like the biggest inept clown in the history of the United States of America. He has brought nothing but shame to Americans and the American flag worldwide, and war and tyranny abroad. What's amazing is, with every single step he takes he does something to make himself look worse and worse.

I am damned ashamed of myself for voting for the man in 2000, and he makes me damned ashamed to be called a Republican.

Brianl said>>>>
I am damned ashamed of myself for voting for the man in 2000, and he makes me damned ashamed to be called a Republican.

Me too!

Now registed Democrat.

Why? Bush as (P)resident has done us great harm. The GOP, enabled this, encouraged it and continues to allow it to happen, despite plenty of support from the people to have it otherwise.

Spineless bastards.

The Democrats are not perfect by any means, but they have not allowed what the GOP allowed to happen to our nation.

I feel pretty good about not having voted for him. I don't feel that good about being duped into thinking the GOP actually had any of my interests in mind.

***We have engaged this particular topic for nearly four years. During that time, everybody (and I mean everybody) who bothered to step up for the (P)resident has gotten their ass spanked hard and fast.

(maybe they like it?)

If you have any self-respect at all, reaching some level of acceptance on this would do you, and your fellow Americans a lot of good. It's ok to be conservative and not support this (P)resident you know.

Here is the brutal part. For all this trouble, look at the subject of this thread: "Another Pro-Life Victory." That is what this is all about. (among other divisive issues)

If we went back to election time, and we took fraud off the table and said, "Elect this guy! He's gonna run us broke, piss off most of the world and kill a ton of innocent people, but he will take Roe V Wade down!" those among us, to whom nothing else matters, would have cast a vote in favor. The rest of us, seeing that horrible value proposition, would have cast in favor of someone else.

So, here we are today. There is a nice crack in Roe V Wade, but it cost a lot to get it. Is that really worth it? Should your average person even be asking this question?


Those who do feel it is worthy, would feel like a complete ass for just coming out and admitting it, so they are left with propping up the GOP and it's (P)resident no matter what. The alternative is to just reveal to their peers just how selfish they really are.

"To INVADE Iraq ILLEGALLY???"

Wrong.

Your buddies at the UN gave the OK, after Saddam laughed at over a dozen of their so-called 'sanctions.'

Classic political claptrap. The left insists the UN is a credible body. Then when we follow their instructions, it's 'blame America first' time.

Herb

Herb writes:
Your buddies at the UN gave the OK, after Saddam laughed at over a dozen of their so-called 'sanctions.'

Wow, no offense, friend, but you have a poor memory of events. The UN inspectors were in Iraq in early 2003 looking for the weapons that weren't there when the US decided not to ask for a UN resolution authorizing invasion of Iraq, because Bush and Powell knew if it was brought up for a vote in the UN, it would fail. The truth is, Saddam caved in late 2002 and let the inspectors back in.

The really sad thing is: had Bush stopped after threatening Saddam with invasion in late 2002 and simply let the UN weapons inspectors do their jobs, Bush would have looked like a genius president, a Teddy Roosevelt almost, after knocking over the Taliban and getting Saddam to buckle under pressure. There's a good chance Saddam would have finally been toppled anyway. Saddam nearly was toppled after Clinton's 1998 Dessert Fox bombing campaign. It wouldn't have taken much to knock him over as it turned out, but the US didn't understand that until after the 2003 invasion.

Andrew

...and we go through this every few weeks.

Someday it might stick. Back to something that just might stick a little better!

Here is a very interesting reaction to the recent SCOTUS ruling:

http://naamah-darling.livejournal.com/256369.html

Animal indeed. Did you guys read the opinions? The justification for this law is extremely weak, and these are Supreme Court justices, who clearly should know better.

I'm ok with laws like this, but they've gotta be defensible. I'm sorry, but the idea that women cannot be relied upon to make sound judgements about this procedure is complete and utter bunk. That idea is one of the cornerstones for this decision.

(would not make it past a high-school debate team)

Go home and show this to your wife. I did, and she agreed on the spot.

And another take, from an excellent contributer to Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/20/18641/8987

I found this worth consideration:

"I can't be made to donate so much as a square inch of skin against my will if I'm lying on a slab in a morgue and didn't sign up as an organ donor. And these milquetoast 'friends' of mine have equivocated to the point that a dead, anencephalic, spina bifida-having or hydrocephalic fetus could put me in jeopardy of my life or health, because it now has the legal right to commandeer my uterus. Do you get that! I have more rights over the disposition of my body if I'm dead. Dead! You bet I'm pissed at the Democrats over this. And when anyone tells me I shouldn't be pissed off over it, just try, if you will, as an exercise in hypothetical abstraction, to imagine how much more volcanically pissed off that sodding well makes me."

Interesting no?

I don't know about all of you, but I consider my body mine. Frankly, I'm quite happy being a guy, not having to even consider such matters. Perhaps a few of us should...

And from the first link I posted:

"Banning one procedure, no matter how morally troubling some people find it, says that they don't trust women. Period. They don't trust women to know when it is necessary, what is best for them. They don't think women ought to be trusted with that choice.

People who think that abortion should be allowed, "except for"; people who think it should be banned "except in cases of . . ."; these are not moral people. They are squeamish, and fearful, and poorly-educated, and they would inflict their squeamishness, fear, and ignorance upon every woman in the country."

I'm gonna be speaking to women on this, when political matters come up. I'm gonna let them know this lies right at the feet of the limp dick, rubber stamping GOP and their Resident President Bush.

Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion that said:

"I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, has no basis in the Constitution."

So, let's leave all the what if, only necessary when, bits off the table and get right to the meat of it. This is political, just like I wrote it was above. This is about Roe V Wade and I'm sure word is gonna get out pretty fast among women. I'll gladly help that along. I happen to trust them, trust my own wife completely as a peer --a fellow American.

Some of us don't, but I'll bet when the matter is framed in terms of trust, risk and other factors besides ugly, the numbers are gonna be pretty low. I wonder at the number of women that find this core lack of trust, that comes with the inferior implication along for the ride, an acceptable state of affairs?

Thankfully, none of the women in my family feel this. I feel sorry for those that do.

Sorry ladies! It appears, as a gender, we men have some serious work to do.

Herb forgets EVERYTHING when it doesn't fit into what he thinks is fact....
WOW!

Noone has come up with 1 scenerio, where a partial birth abortion can be justified by improving a womans physical health.

Malformed fetus, poor orientation, carry to term holds significant health risks --bleeding, uteral damage, disfunction...

Issue does not manifest itself until 2nd trimester.

Done, next.

"Done, next."

Precisely what abortion mills do to innocent, unborn babies. From the Tennessee Right To Life website:

To begin the procedure, the abortionist turns the baby into a breech position by grabbing the legs with forceps. Pulling the live baby feet-first out of the womb and into the birth canal, the doctor purposely keeps the head lodged just inside the cervix. The abortionist then sharply thrusts a pair of long surgical scissors into the base of the skull and opens them to enlarge a hole. This, of course, kills the baby. A tube connected to a high-powered vacuum is then used to suction out the brain material. This allows the skull of the baby to be crushed, making it easier to complete the extraction.

Medical experts testified at congressional hearings that the baby feels tremendous pain during the partial-birth abortion procedure. In fact, doctors say a baby at this stage of development has a much higher density of Qpioid (pain) receptors than children or adults.

Partial-birth abortions are performed routinely on mothers from 41/2 months into the pregnancy through full-term. About 90% of partial-birth abortions are done during the fifth and sixth months. The majority are performed on healthy babies carried by healthy mothers for elective reasons.

The American Medical Association (AMA) does not recognize the partial-birth abortion procedure. In fact, the AMA officially endorsed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in Congress.

Contrary to what the proponents of partial-birth abortion are saying, this procedure is never medically necessary to save the life or future fertility of the mother. In 1996, a group of physicians, mostly experts in the fields of obstetrics, gynecology and pediatrics, were outraged over the false stories being spread by the national media and pro-abortion groups. They banned together to form Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT). PHACT now consists of more than 600 medical specialists including former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. These doctors came together to get the message to the American people that partial-birth abortions are never medically necessary to save the life of the mother or her future fertility. (Under the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, a mother can still have a partial-birth abortion if her life is in jeopardy.)

Herb

Okay, you won. Hurray.

Happy now? (i doubt it).

And how does a partial birth abortion help that, after all, you delay removing the baby from the mother in that procedure. 95% of the baby is out of the birth canal, when the doctor stops everything, so he can essentially put an ice pick in the babies brain.

You guys really get off on this don't you?

"Happy now?"

Absolutely. Now, more innocent babies have a shot at life.

The next job is to find those little guys and gals loving homes.

"You guys really get off on this don't you?"

Yeah, we get off on saving innocent lives. The other side of your question presumes that YOU guys get off on snuffing them out.

Herb

And enduring that ugly list on the other thread is the cost of making sure women are forced to bear those (few) unborn. Yeah, I really would feel good about that. It's like winning a sports game by hurting the good players on the other team in such a way so they cannot ever play again.

Nwokie, how else to get it out of there? C-section, what? Seems to me, a medical professional should make that judgement, based on the mothers condition, the malformity in question and other health factors. Of course there is the choice to leave it too. Ideally, the pro-lifers will help with the burden.

The way it is now, we've got men pre-legislating those choices. And their core justification happens to be the woman not being capable of handling these decisions!

It's a crock.

No, YOU presume that. Please give it a rest. This bill passed, be happy for your cause. I'd get into more with you but the horse has been beaten enough here. These absurd lengthy descriptions of the procedure don't get us anywhere, we've all agreed it's awful.

How else to get it out, just give it that last tiny pull, and its out. Without waiting 10-15 minutes for the doctor to perform "the procedure".

It's funny how the EXTREME REICH won't give it a rest. They just keep grinding it in......
And then they piss and moan when things don't go their way....
HYPOCRITES!

"The majority are performed on healthy babies carried by healthy mothers for elective reasons."

I call BULLSHIT! I don't believe that for a nano-second.

>>>"I call BULLSHIT! I don't believe that for a nano-second."


Why should you? You don't believe in any other part of reality.

I'll second that call.

I don't know any women that would elect to do this, unless they were forced into it, or it was a medical issue.

Got some stats?

Reality? Coming from you, DJ, I'll take that as a compliment. If you think I don't believe in reality, Mr. Pot, ask your wife, Ma Kettle, her opinion.

As the only person on this thread that has actually been pregnant and given birth, and (I assume) the only one with a working vagina and uterus, I still say BULLSHIT.

http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/partial-birth-abortion.htm

Wow what a great website! This well-researched factual article is located right next to the truth about:

Marilyn Manson
The Mark of the Beast
Is Hell Real?
Tarot Cards
Halloween

"Marilyn Manson's music promotes suicide, death, drug use, violence and hatred says Jason Janz, a youth pastor who formed Citizens for Peace and Respect. "We're not saying he caused Columbine, but we're saying he legitimizes and encourages that kind of behavior."

Most abortions in the United States — nearly 90 percent — are provided in the first trimester.

Fewer than 10 percent take place in the second trimester.

But after 24 weeks of pregnancy, abortions are performed only for serious health reasons. Fewer than one-tenth of one percent of abortions happen during this time.

HerrB, this is not true:

"The American Medical Association (AMA) does not recognize the partial-birth abortion procedure. In fact, the AMA officially endorsed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in Congress."

Here's the policy from the AMA:

http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-5 .982.HTM

It appears that like Mr. Kerry, who was for a bill before he voted against it, the AMA was on the record for stating they were against partial birth abortion...as long as they could still perform it.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/amaletter.html

Follow the money, folks. Pro-lifers don't make a dime off a child who is killed. But some people do.

Herb

Though never a supporter of partial-birth abortion used just to get rid of a baby, I have always placed the life of the mother first. Why do the conservatives not support that idea?

>>>"Why do the conservatives not support that idea?"

I don't know that they don't. But, don't confuse that with the fact that things like that are most of the time just an excuse to get around the law.

Read the AMA article,it says there is never a time when a partial birth abortion is required for the health of the mother.

I don't believe any woman would have this procedure just to "get rid of a baby". It's horrible, and it must be a dire medical necessity for the mother to even consider this, or any other method to end pregnancy that late into it.

So your disputing your own link?

I learned a long time ago there is "never a never."

Very true...

Which, of course, makes law like this stupid.

In fact. Nwokie, the report says:

Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are, in fact, generally not necessary for those purposes.

Note the phrase "generally." That implies that sometimes the it is needed to save the mother.

What is your choice: fetus or mother?

What difference does it make to you guys which medical procedure is used?

Since you guys know so much about it, Drs. Okie, HerrB and Johnson, what are the other procedures?

Are those procedures perfectly OK with you?

Also, the term "Partial Birth Abortion" is only used by you zealots, not by the AMA or any other legitimate medical or news organizations.

Mrs. Merkin: You know by now I am in the liberal camp on most things and do accept abortion in the first two tri-mesters, but at 24 weeks the fetus is a baby and can be kept alive outside of the mother. Thus I can go along with the phrase partial-birth and I am not a zealot.

>>>"Since you guys know so much about it, Drs. Okie, HerrB and Johnson, what are the other procedures?"

I don't support any procedure that kills innocent children.

RBMan, Sorry for not being more clear, I wasn't putting you anywhere near the same camp as the other three.

And just for the record, you three, whom will never, ever have to personally deal with this issue, I would never have a late-term abortion unless there was absolutely 100% no other options. It would be much more difficult mentally than delivering a stillborn, which is what two of my friends have had to do.

Again, I say NO woman would do this procedure just to end a pregnancy, it has to be the very last option, and it's still none of your business, boys.

This article by the Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners pretty much sums up where I now stand on this dividing issue.

In a long-awaited decision, the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a congressional ban on the procedure called “partial birth abortion,” the first time a specific abortion procedure has been banned. “Pro-life” forces are claiming a great victory, and “pro-choice” advocates are lamenting a terrible defeat. Both sides hope or fear a slippery slope toward, or away from, their ultimate goals.

The procedure in question is a particularly objectionable form of abortion that Sojourners has long opposed, and even some pro-choice supporters have had problems with. And the law in question had strong bipartisan support when it passed Congress in 2003 – a 281-142 vote in the House (including 63 Democrats) and a 64-34 vote in the Senate (with 17 Democrats.) In a 2003 Gallup poll, 68 percent of Americans thought that "late term" or "partial birth" abortions should be made illegal.

The procedure involves very few abortions - about 2,200 out of 1.31 million in 2000, the last year for which numbers are available. And simply banning one procedure means that there are alternative procedures that will now be used. But the furious arguments on both sides again show how mostly symbolic the abortion debate remains when focused on primarily legal questions. After ten years of heated debate, the Court's decision does nothing to reduce the number of abortions.

Most Americans are alarmed at the nation’s high abortion rate, but don’t support criminalizing it. They want to keep abortion legal, but make it genuinely rare. In 2005, 68 percent of Americans agreed that abortion should be legal, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. We have supported a "consistent life ethic" - which seeks a dramatic reduction in the actual abortion rate in America, without criminalizing what is always a tragic choice and often a desperate one. Others also question if total abortion bans are really pro-life because of the likely consequences of back-alley abortions, especially for poor women.

It’s time for concrete action that would actually and seriously reduce the number of abortions in America. A better approach than the symbolic legal battle would be to gather new energy for a commitment to advancing real solutions. A constructive dialogue should include how best to prevent unwanted pregnancies, support pregnant women who find themselves in an unexpected situation, and effectively reduce the abortion rate.

Legislation that could make a real difference in changing the circumstances that make abortions more likely has been introduced again in the new Congress. The Reducing the Need for Abortions and Supporting Parents Act, introduced by Reps. Tim Ryan and Rosa DeLauro “aims to reduce the abortion rate by preventing unintended pregnancies, supporting pregnant women, and assisting new parents. One in five abortions are obtained by a teenager and 60 percent are obtained by women with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty line.” We supported this legislation in the last Congress and will again. Other legislation may be introduced again by Rep. Lincoln Davis, and Democrats for Life continues to promote its 95/10 Initiative, which is still a good one.

It’s time that both pro-life and pro-choice supporters come together and support these measures, and actually do something serious and substantial in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and dramatically reducing the abortion rate. Who could be against that? Let’s indeed save unborn lives. It’s time to move from symbols to substance.

Edit: Sorry Chris, I posted about the same time and mean no disrespect to this excellent article!

I agree!

_________________________________________________

Next, what we have here is a "pop-up" (haha!) tab from Okie's "source" (above) that came "up"...right next to the "About teen pregnancy" and "About Marilyn Manson" articles!

To use a HerrBism "You can't make this stuff up"

For Christian Married Men Only...

Discover The Secrets To Multiple, Intense Orgasms...

Increase The Passion and Fulfillment In Your Marriage...

Virtually Overnight...

Results 100% Guaranteed!

Discover what the Bible says to those men that are struggling in, essentially, sexless marriages.

Learn the secrets to making your wife desire sex more regularly.

See what the Bible says about anal and oral sex.

The surprising fact about masturbation that most Christians (including Pastors) don't know.

Discover the "male G Spot" - find and utilize this powerful pleasure trigger to create mind-blowing pleasure.

Make your erections longer, harder and more pleasurable.

Become a multi-orgasmic male.

Discover a type of orgasm that many men say is more intense than any other...

You cannot find my book, Sexual Skills For The Christian Husband, in any bookstore.

You can only buy this, in total privacy, here for $37.00. Simply click here. A copy will be downloaded to your computer in less than 2 minutes...And try this unique Book, at your leisure....without any risk or obligation whatsoever!

If, for any reason (or no reason at all), you decide this book doesn't meet your needs...I will refund every penny you paid. Furthermore, I'll even let you keep the book for your trouble.

Thousands of men are happy that they are discovering (and experiencing) the secrets revealed here. Secrets like...

Learn the psychological triggers that will interest your wife in more regular sexual activity.

The number one sexual activity that women say that they desire...

Boost the variety in your love life. Learn the secrets to increasing your wife's interest in newer, different activities.

AND I loved this part!

...For the first time in almost thirteen years, my wife had an orgasm during intercourse. She was so overcome with pleasure and joy that she, literally, cried! She told me that she had never imagined that pleasure could be so... overwhelming.

Poor thing!

Order now for an added extra boner, I mean bonus:

Extremely Limited Time Offer!

Try "Sexual Skills For The Christian Husband" now and also receive...

"She Loves God, Me And Sex!"
(Retail Value: $37.00)


http://www.achristiansexsite.com/husband/?gclid=CNyQsLfp2YsCFQReYQodxQzqXQ

P.S. You did not find this site by chance. With God, there are no "coincidences." You were meant to find this site because God cares about you, your marriage... and your sexual satisfaction!

(I honestly had no idea that God could circumvent my pop-up blocker!)

Batteries and Condoms not included

DJ said>>>>
>>>"Since you guys know so much about it, Drs. Okie, HerrB and Johnson, what are the other procedures?"

I don't support any procedure that kills innocent children.

But.... any procedure/operation that includes killing kids in our armed forces is okay...

Thanks for clearing that up.

Thanks Mrs. M. I am going to stay quiet on this particular thread because I really can't add to it after that Jim Wallis article.

I've said too much already on this subject.

I don't think there is much to add.

If any woman I know somehow ends up in one of these horrible positions, it will be choice; namely, hers. Might cost me, but that's what will happen --if she feels it needs to happen.

I've a lot of respect for the law. Adding crap like this to it, does the whole body of law harm. What gets me is the justification, posted above --as if women were mere animals in heat. Fuckers...

There are times when ones own sense of justice and morality trancend the law. If it's me involved, this will absolutely be one of those times.

Hopefully I'm done with it as well. (Unless my PMS or some other mysterious female malady gets the better of me after some stupid manly post)

And thanks again for the good article, I've passed it along.

You are welcome. I did the same.

Remember to let them know the rubber stampers got this done.

Curse all you want, but two wrongs don't make a right.

And given all the hand-wringing we get from the left and their minions in the aclu to defend convicted murderers, I could understand if liberals were simply AWOL on this issue. But no, they actually take the opposing side when it comes to defending the most innocent and weak among us. Pro-life when it comes to defending murderers, but not pro-life when it comes to defending the murdered.

Herb

I really don't care what you think on this.

You said, "Nothing else matters but fighting terror and getting rightie court appointments."

I don't matter, nor does the woman down the street your guys just screwed.

Herb- Did you read the Rev. Jim Wallis article I posted?

I'm fine with prevention and if the Rev. Jim Wallis works with that approach, that's great. Besides, I don't kiss the pope's ring on this issue, even though he is a pro-life guy.

That being said, I'm cautious whenever I hear ANYONE speak about making abortions 'safe, legal and rare.' I have a fundamental disagreement with that presumption of safety, because the after-effects of abortion are felt by the woman months, years and decades after the fact and the scars are not simply physical. Depression, suicide, alcoholism and many other ramifications are all results of a woman living with the understanding of her tragic decision.

In addition, that kind of weasely language on abortion was the exact same language used by Mr. Clinton, a perjurer of the first order and the one who vetoed the original bills to stop this form of infanticide. In addition, Mr. Clinton was financially helped by the abortion lobby. ANYTHING he says on the topic is suspect.

Mr. Clinton lied to his own wife repeatedly over many years. The man is ethically anesthetized. Why should anyone believe him about anything? Plus, he recently tried to tell us that partial birth abortion is acceptable and necessary. It is neither.

Herb

"...because the after-effects of abortion are felt by the woman months, years and decades after the fact and the scars are not simply physical. Depression, suicide, alcoholism and many other ramifications are all results of a woman living with the understanding of her tragic decision..."

Oh, Brother.

Give me and the millions of women (the majority of) who want to keep abortion legal (and rare) a break, Dr. Self-Appointed-Expert-On-Women-Who've-Considered-Or-Had-An-Abortion.

Thank you Herb for reading the article and giving your feedback . That was all I was looking for. You have the right to your opinion.

You're welcome Chris. The Reverend's approach is probably a fine one.

As for Mrs. Merkin's comments, she clearly does not speak for all women:

http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_effects_of_abortion.asp

I wonder how the troll would feel about women having equal authority to decide which treatment men need to undertake for prostate cancer.

I'd say for each time a MAN suggests we end abortion choices for women, a nut of his is removed.

Ooooh, Skep, good idea! Sign me up! And how about letting us do the same with male circumcision? Especially adult males.

I don't like anteaters wearing turtlenecks, so I should be able to have a vote, right? I'm going to write Gordon Smith right NOW. Just as soon as I get done reading this stupid "book" Mr. M downloaded and is forcing me to read before he uncuffs me, and lets me out of this ridiculous get-up, I can "hardly" wait to put my mighty whiteys and flannel back on. These stupid heels just about "poked" a hole in his eye-socket. Too bad I can't reach the phone call 911 for him. He might want to get his $37 back...unless HerrB needs to borrow it.

**********************************************

"As for Mrs. Merkin's comments, she clearly does not speak for all women"

Thankfully, neither do you, HerrB.

Check out the majority of the footnotes actually cited and used in the article, they're almost all from the early 1970's.

And several points are irrefutable: OF COURSE an abortion is traumatic and OF COURSE it messes with women's heads. But the vast majority don't end up becoming Herrb's inflated vision of fragile, unstable bleeding petite fleur nutjobs who can never go on with a regular life because they're just so weak.

Break time! Everybody to their corners! Pull out the mouth guard, give that bucket a good spit and enjoy this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

Herb said>>>
And given all the hand-wringing we get from the left and their minions.

How about YOUR minions???

Save the children but let the young men and women DIE in the desert????

Can we please end this one? It's gone beyond redundant, no one is changing anyone's mind, all opinions have been expressed multiple times.

OK.

>>>"Can we please end this one? It's gone beyond redundant, no one is changing anyone's mind, all opinions have been expressed multiple times."

If you're bothered by it, why do you keep clicking on it?

From a strictly political point of view, this is an interesting question.

Will the supreme courts decision have the affect of getting a lot mor "Pro Choice" voters to the polls, as they see their rights being rolled back.

Or will it be the catalyst to get more "Pro Lifers" to the polls, as they see their work has started to have an affect?

effect.