Wednesday, April 18, 2007
|
|
Conservatives Celebrate Ban on Abortion Procedure
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
5:16 PM
|
|
It's fair to say the conservative movement deserves a lot of credit for today's Supreme Court decision to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion. We worked to elect a president who would make good Supreme Court picks -- and he did.
Here's what the Washington Post has to say:
The dramatic decision delivered to abortion opponents the promise of a more conservative court as reconstituted by Bush, who praised the majority's rejection of what he called an "abhorrent procedure" and suggested that he would continue working for greater restrictions on abortion.
The ruling marked the first time that the court has upheld a ban on a specific abortion procedure. It also marked a departure from the Supreme Court's past practice of requiring a "health exception" in laws governing abortion to allow the procedure when a woman's health would otherwise be at risk.
Granted, he needed our help to avoid Harriet Miers (yes, I opposed her nomination from the beginning). Of course, we cannot say, for sure, how she would have voted on upholding the partial-birth abortion ban. But I, for one, feel a lot safer with Roberts and Alito -- don't you?
And we can definitely use something positive to celebrate right now. Here's what Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council wrote today:
After three very dark days for our nation, those who cherish life rejoice in the news that the Supreme Court no longer endorses the senseless killing of innocent, partially-born babies.
In a week where the effects of violence have been so keenly felt, we applaud the U.S. Supreme Court's decision today upholding Congress's statute that ends the bloodshed of the unborn by the horrific partial-birth abortion procedure.
I've been saying for a long time now, that conservative bloggers and activists deserve credit for our current Supreme Court. Here's what a liberal blog, Save the Court, wrote back in January of '06:
In what he calls an underreported story, Matt Lewis, author of a guidebook for effectively communicating with GOP voters, writes in Human Events that “Conservative bloggers, pundits, and activists stopped the Harriet Meirs nomination,” and if Alito is confirmed “much of the credit will rightfully belong to the conservative movement.” Calling this “truly an historic accomplishment,” Lewis also claims credit for doing “the President a huge favor by saving him the embarrassment of a disastrous confirmation hearing” by opposing Harriet Miers.
Tonight, we rightly celebrate the ruling. After all, imagine what would have happened today if we hadn't worked hard to get good judges on the bench ...
|
|
The only point of debate left to the pro-abortion crowd is the myth that an abortion is "often" necessary in order to save a woman's life. It is a falsehood and it is only used to justify the millions of “abortions of convenience”.
This bogus argument and other pro-abortion myths are debunked here:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBAall110403.html
Yes, there is the “once in a blue moon” life-saving abortion procedure, but they are extremely rare...and I know most people wouldn't have an issue with a doctor saving a woman's life. But, it's not grounds to allow this horrific procedure. We could use the same logic to outlaw seatbelts, because once or twice a year someone burns up in a car due to a stuck seatbelt.
One more point…all this lib outcry over “activist judges” is amazing. Where were these people when the 1972 SCOTUS discovered a “right to privacy” in the Constitution (which doesn’t exist) and then used this made up right to justify abortion!?
|
|
Re "If it's not a baby...". Of course it's a baby, but some babies shouldn't be born. Some pregnancies should be terminated. And that is a medical decision. You have taken a medical decision away from physicians and have essentially given it to the church: a step backwards for civilization.
|
|
you are not pregnant. Yes, admittedly, this is only a small step in the right direction. It also sounds like a confused step at that,(as if the several decades of medical and political obfuscation by the doctors and planned-parenthood types performing abortions for pure greed haven't heavily contributed to the confusion.) Our society can't even define what life is and when it starts, or whether it is valuable. Sadly, this shouldn't even be an issue and human life should be protected, loved and respected. Not just the body and life of the woman, but also the child that a huge portion of the world's population believe started it's life at conception. (not 5 days later, as if a soul is a scientificly observable event.)
I am thankful for the beautiful adopted 12 year old daughter I have and the total blessing she is, and that she was saved from the choice of abortion by her mother.
And I am saddened and sickened by the side of society that rail-roads young frightened women into abortions and fights hard to keep them from ever getting all sides of the debate, because they know this would slow the multi-billion dollar abortion mills. You say you don't want the government intervening with your body, but I say the government is intervening where it does not belong when it funds abortion clinics with my tax dollars.
And in regards to comments about religous dogma, I'm sorry, but a person's world views, no matter what basis they are founded on, IS their religion. Just because a person, group or institution's beliefs aren't tied to a particular religion or diety, shouldn't give them more rights and freedoms to influence politics or the education process than those that are. I suggest you read "The light and the Glory" which contains a great deal of the actual writings of the founding fathers and will give you a more realistic view of early U.S. history compared to what the sterilized secular colleges provide.
What I really wish for, and I am as guilty as any, is that society would start having some deeper more useful debates (and examination of real evidence) on this subject and others, rather than the useless rants, name-calling and labels. I have become very aware this last year listening to both ends of the radio talk show spectrum, that both sides make some great points, both sides have some valid arguments, both sides purposely omit certain facts or even whole issues, and both sides can't admit obvious hypocrisies or even use correct logic all the time.
We need a radio talk show that gives each side equal time to talk back and forth, (like in 5 minute increments) instead of the shows that won't let the guest get past the controlling "have you stopped beating your wife" type questions. Frankly, I don't care if the guest doesn't directly answer the hosts question. And the host doesn't need to point out more than once that the guest isn't answering the question and stop the whole converstaion. I'm smart enough to understand if someone is dodging an aspect of the debate, but also want to allow the guest to say whatever they want ot communicate, and decide for myself whether it is pertinent. Deeper, more meaningful, constructive common-ground-finding interactions, not self-serving devisive polarizing rants. |
|
"For those of you who seek to control other people's behavior, through your religious dogma, wrapped in law, know nothing of the precepts of this nation to live under Freedom, Democracy and Liberty."
Really? That's the best you can do? You think that your "behavior" which is being controlled holds more weight than the right to human life? There's the age old arguement that I love to hear; and it's just as meaningless as ever. |
|
Don't humiliate yourself anymore. With your line of logic a doctor could decapitate his patient -as long as his decision wasn't based on some religious principle all is well.
All Laws are based on moral principles. Most Western Laws came from a core of Jewish and Christian thought and morals. If you cannot see this, please take the time to educate yourself. |
|
"You have officially turned our Supreme Court into an unelected super-legislature."
So by your standards it's only when conservative justices take action that this is the case. Right?
The original findings in Roe weren't the result of the Left Wing having "officially turned our Supreme Court into an unelected super-legislature". Correct? |
|
|
Both the United States and Iran yesterday gave a legal victory to those who would have religion decide the laws of the land. Here, a medical decision was taken out of the hands of physicians in order to satisfy a political base of religious extremists. In Iran, six murder convictions were overturned with the ruling that the killings were justified because they were done in the name of Islam. (Ref NYT 4-19-07---if you believe persons to be morally corrupt and the state refuses to put them to death, you get to kill them yourself, then if it turns out they were not morally corrupt after all, the only penalty is that you have to pay "blood money" to their families. The Iranian state had ruled against this kind of killing, but a religion-controlled court has now upheld the right to take the law into your own hands if you do it in the name of Islam.) |
|
IN response to the Supreme Court decision yesterday and reading the opinion of the court, it is amazing to me what, in years past, would have been a common sense ban of a cruel and unnecessary act .Today, common sense now requires years of litigation and years of the court’s time. I suppose the only shocking part of this story is that it was a 5-4 decision, with the dissenting opinion making the case that ANY possible risk to the mother, ANY possible limitation to complete access to ANY procedure is going down that slippery slope of overturning Roe v Wade.
I must say I am staunch pro life. I am not so naïve to think that Roe v Wade will be overturned in 5 years, a decade, or even in my lifetime -- though I pray it happens. This 4 decade debate has damaged the sanctity of life to the point that I’m not sure that we can recover from it as a society. So long term, things look grim. But shorter term I try to be an optimist. It keeps the gloom and doom of societal destruction on the back burner.
What can I do today to help change one mind? Today, I would write about a beautiful 2 year old boy that is here because his young pregnant birth mother, when she hit 2nd trimester of that pregnancy, decided that she wanted to carry him to term and place him with an adoptive family – my wife and me. I thank God every day for that young lady’s decision and we have our son because of it. If this Supreme Court decision helps just one mother to make the same decision, I am thankful.
BTW – I have read the opinion (all 50+ pages of it). I highly recommend everyone to read it. It will increase your knowledge and give you insight into the opposite camp’s weak position. Contrary to what else has been posted here, not every medical professional thinks the intact D&E is necessary. Being in the medical field, I read a lot of position papers from AAP, AUA, APA, AMA , etc.. Most of these medical organizations have a strong liberal bent, so I’m not surprised that they have come out more in favor of keeping this horrific procedure in place.
|
|
Many of the heart-felt comments address the merits of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, but another issue is before us. The court upheld the law issued by the constitutional process, passed in both houses and signed by the President.
Now if some do not think the Law is wise, the Law can be changed constitutionally by a similar process.
The people can now decide, rather than suffer the tyranny of judicial edict. This is the conservative victory, conserving the constitution with all it flaws. |
|
For those of you who seek to control other people's behavior, through your religious dogma, wrapped in law, know nothing of the precepts of this nation to live under Freedom, Democracy and Liberty.
If Jefferson were alive today I would welcome him slapping you nutcases right across your face and asking who the hell do you think you are. |
|
animalgirlisback
Nice post. Very nice, indeed.
It should never be the decision of someone else to decide how another person’s life is to be lived or the choices one should make.
Whatever can be done in the safest of ways for the mother, is the best course of action.
Attempting to impose your perceived view of life onto others is not socially acceptable. Mind your own business.
If you really want to do something useful, you pro-lifers, then start advocating for the morning after pill.
In modern democracy, we attempt to resolve polarized positions on the issues by finding the common ground. I am so happy to find common ground on the “abortion pill”, RU-486, issue. Since pro-lifers state that the soul enters the human mammal during embryogenesis at the blastocyst stage, about five days into the process, all people would not consider termination of a pregnancy prior to five days murder.
Saying the soul enters at the blastocyst stage is as arbitrary and silly as saying it enters at the post-pubescent stage.
I’m all for aborting a few adolescents now and then.
|
|
Here's some fun facts about the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. If you don't believe me, do some looking yourself.
1) The term "partial-birth abortion" is not recognized in any medial literature used by physicians nor is it used by physicians who perform second-trimester abortions. The procedure is actually called dilation & evacuation (D&E). The partial birth abortion refers to an intact D&E where the fetus is terminated outside of the uterus.
2) The other form of D&E is still legal, so this act really doesn't stop any abortions from happening, it only disallows a certain form of it. So moral arguments for the act don't really make any sense.
3) The intact D&E can be significantly safer for women under certain circumstances( i.e. less tools have to be inserted past the cervix, the procedure is faster so the patient has a smaller chance of an adverse reaction to anesthesia, the fetus is removed from the uterus in full instead of in parts as in the non-intact D&E which reduces the risk of fetal tissue being left in the uterus which can cause infection and other complications, etc.)
2) While the act consistently refers to partial birth abortions as "late-term" in the act and in the majority decision it is actually a second trimester procedure which still must be performed prior to viability as must all abortions.
3) 85-90% of abortions occur within the first three months of pregnancy, so these abortions are not a common practice.
4) Adolescents and indigent women are much more likely than other women to have difficulty obtaining an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy, and as such are more likely to require a second trimester abortion
5) Adolescents and indigent women also happen to be more likely to have the health risks which would result in the intact D&E procedure being recommended.
The conservatives like this blogger give the rest of us a bad name. Please do a little research outside of bill o'riley the next time you wish to form an intelligent position.
|
|
Isn't there still alternatives for women that allow for the killing of the late term infant in the womb? Seems just as wrong and barbaric as partial birth.
Don't get me wrong, the decision is a move in the right direction, but not sure what it really accomplishes. |
|
This despicable procedure, known as partial birth abortion, has been ruled to be illegal. It is truly from the pit of hell, and has no place in a civilized society.
Whatever happened to the Constitutional right to "life, liberty, and property?" What is so hard to understand about the right to life of an unborn baby?
The Constitution says what it says. It is what it is.
Thank God for President Bush's appointment of true constitutional justices. We may disagree with GWB at times, but this is one thing he most definitely did right! |
|
Always one to seek the other thought process...ie the left version of this SC decision...Over at Daily Kos the sentence read," It's a dark day for women's health and safety." from Planned Parenthood!!Well, here's a thought for the bleeding hearts- You probably should promote more use of actual birth control and the right way to use it. Because as my 14 yo son said to me yesterday, "Mom, there is no such thing as accidental Parenthood." Therefore, if you have unprotected sex and get pregnant, we all know a baby is the potential outcome. And,so you know your pregnant, but sit on the fence about what to do, when suddenly at 5 months along, it's not good for you?
If I agreed with any abortion for the sake of argument, let's jsut let those premie babies all die, they are not babies, since gestation was not complete, and we could call it a late term abortion. I was born when my mother was 24 weeks. By those standards, I would be dead....Call that an absurd example but it is your leftist truth and in no way stomps on your right to choose to be a responsibley sexual active adult. |
|
There are alternatives to partial-birth abortion:
injecting digoxin or another substance into the heart of a pre-born
human life, killing the pre-born human life, and then delivering a dead baby.
O'Reilly has discussed a Dr. Tiller, who uses a method like that to kill late-term pre-born human life.
|
|
|
My understanding of the significance of this ruling is that it, for the first time, establishes that limits can be placed on abortion. Any limitation is significant. It creates a beachhead for fighting further limitations from. If it is insignificant, why are Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and so many other pro-abortion absolutists dismayed? |
|
I'm allowed to agree with Hilary and Obama if what they say is supported by the facts.
In this case all of the major medical associations involved in the discussion have stated that there are legitimate medical reasons for the procedure.
I for one am not in the group which believes the federal government should be making medical decisions for doctors. Especially when the prevailing medical wisdom disagrees with the federal government.
And again, this act stops no abortions, it merely dictates that the fetus must be terminated inside the uterus against medical advice. |
|
|
the Supreme Court should not have upheld the ban on partial birth abortion? You do realize that, in so doing, you are taking the same position that Hillary and Obama took today? |
|
Still, this is pretty much a lose lose situation for abortion rights supporters and anti-abortion rights groups.
No less abortions + increased danger to women
where is the victory? |
|
have barely warmed their seats. I think today is a good step in the right direction. And if Bush gets another pick, who knows...
Of course we haven't won the war, yet. But this is a good step -- and it's one that we should celebrate. |
|
The partial birth abortion ban simply bans a single method of the dilation and evacuation procedure.
The procedure itself is still legal, only now the fetus must be destroyed inside of the uterus.
It stops no abortions and it only serves to threaten the lives of the women for whom medical advice would reccommend the alternate procedure which has now been banned against medical advice.
So I'll ask again, what are you celebrating? |
|
|
|