Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Marjorie Dannenfelser  :: Townhall.com Columnist
Women's Groups and Partial Birth Abortion
by Marjorie Dannenfelser
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Women's groups are incensed – incensed! Patriarchal Supreme Court Justices are after our rights! If we don't have the right to puncture unborn children's skulls moments from birth, women cannot live freely.

But what does the Supreme Court's shifting gears to uphold a national ban on the partial birth abortion procedure really bode for women? Is it really a slippery slope back to the bad old days? Most women leaders purporting to represent women have an opinion, believe you me.

A few hours after learning of the decision, Senator Diane Feinstein took to the Senate Floor to rally America's abortion activists: "If I were a young woman today, I would be incredibly concerned that this era is drawing to a close. The threat to reproductive freedom is no longer theoretical.. All those who care about protecting a woman's right to privacy should take notice and make their voices heard."

In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg, attacked Justice Kennedy's expressed doubts that the procedure placed a difficult moral burden upon women. She said of his comments, "this way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution – ideas that have long since been discredited."

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards called Wednesday "a dark day for women's health and safety."

National Organization of Women President Kim Gandy rallied her troops: "We must elect a Congress that will repeal this ban and a president who will sign the repeal. November 2008 can't come soon enough."

Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton vehemently denounced the Supreme Court's decision and its conservative majority, saying: "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health...It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."

And yet Americans are overwhelmingly supportive of the ban – so are all Americans out to get women? Polls showing women's support of the ban would suggest that the majority of women are endangering their own rights.

Here's the problem: if women's rights are undermined by outlawing a procedure that allows us to choose to mutilate and suction out the brains of a baby, mid-birth, then women's rights deserve to be trashed. I would suggest that there is more to women's rights than this. We need go no further than women's rights trailblazer Elizabeth Cady Stanton to dismiss the idea that women's rights and abortion rights are synonymous. "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit," she wrote in a letter to her friend Julia Ward Howe.

And Susan B. Anthony's newspaper The Revolution reinforces Justice Kennedy's assertion about the burden an abortion could have. Her editorial warned, "No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death..."

Further, if denying the choice of this particular procedure is a threat to every choice to abort as our current women leaders claim, then their position cannot be maintained in legislatures. These women are indeed on the wrong side of history – or herstory. Not because of some "ancient" notions of the subjugation of women returning inexplicably to haunt modern women. As if! No, it is because women have intelligence and consciences and are capable of making informed, moral decisions to pass laws that provide the protections of unborn children they support. All the while, they can safeguard their own legitimate human rights.

The old guard's only hope is in the dictatorship of the Supreme Court. That is because Americans, and women in particular, do not agree that the "right" to abortion is absolute. As a group, they are grappling with which restrictions they support, not whether they support any. Since the so-called right to abort is not absolute, then perhaps it is time the democratic process and the majority of American women who support some restrictions on the procedure be allowed to pass laws in which they believe.

It is past time that women as a "movement" use power for noble and life-giving purposes – rather than for mounting legal arguments to safeguard such a hideous procedure. There is enough suffering and violence in the world.

Honestly, it is past time to throw out this old guard of so-called "women's leaders," and it is time to elect women to public office who truly represent women on this issue.

With Ms. Gandy, I could not agree more on one point. November 2008 cannot come soon enough.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Marjorie Dannenfelser is President of the Susan B. Anthony List.

Be the first to read Marjorie Dannenfelser's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Show me
Show me where in the constitution mensioning abortion ???
Rove V, Wade bad law.

Abortion violates women's rights
See Abortion: an indispensable right or violence against women? by Lita Cosner http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4851/ that documents how the early feminists denounced abortion as "child murder", and how abortion is leading to selective culling of girl babies.

other problems with abortion law
If I were to to assault a pregenant woman and kill her baby, I would be a murderer. But it's fine for a doctor to do it. We can't have it both ways.
I the right to abortion is tied to the right to privacy because of the doctor/patient relationship,then why isn't euthinasia protected in the same way.
In a way abortion is worse. We've already been borne. We started dying on that day and nothing can stop that. We are going to die. We don't know when or how, but it is coming.
We are taking a life that hasn't been allowed to start.
If a law is inconsistant it is wrong. If it cannot be applied equally, then there is no equal protection under it.
And then of course it shouldn't be a federal matter anyway. I think the US Constitution is very clear on this.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Bill D
there was a time when men had the right to kill their children. Now we consider it murder and those who know history wonder why it was ever permitted, though, I must confess that as the father of eight there have been moments when I thought it wasn't a bad idea. Roe vs Wade gave women the right to kill their children. Now this has been reduced. Frankly, if injecting a needle into a child's brain during birth is painless, why do we bother with all this lethel injection claptrap for murderers? Just strap them down and stick the needle in and get out what they call a brain.

The Real Point
This whole debate is not about reproductive rights. In order for the individual to be the final arbiter of right and wrong society can not be allowed to interfere with what an individual does with their body. The logical extension of course should go to drug use, prostitution and suicide.

Before we can formulate the perfect society it has to be understood that there is no higher authority than man. Once it is man at the top then anything to achieve perfection is morally acceptable. If you don't agree then a simple very late term abortion can be arranged for you. Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot arranged millions of them.

remember professor Peter Singer

The next step in this slippery slope from the Institute for Social Ecology:

Singer advocates the killing of certain newborn infants at the discretion of their parents. The criteria he proposes for deciding which infants may be killed center on a wide range of hereditary physical conditions which Singer considers "disabilities". He has been forthright and consistent in his advocacy of this position for many years

The stakes in that big tent
The Republican "big tent" is a coalition of economic conservatives, self interested rich people, and social (religious right) conservatives. The first two were willing to put up with the third to win elections. As long as their basic freedoms seemed safe, they put up with the Robertson/Falwell wing that wants to control education and sex life.

Those big stakes holding up that big tent are coming loose. Corruption and incompetence already pulling up a few (witness the 2006 elections). Americans see now that pandering to the religious right also has unfortunate consequences. There's a reason the only Republican presidential candidates polling above single digits are not "social conservatives".

liberalgoodman
put his canned speech on the wrong thread. Coffee shortage.

It's all about the money
I love articles like this that bring out all the "women's right" crowd who invariably then get on a tirade about conservatives and Christians. Those people crack me up. Abortion has nothing to do with women's rights. It's all about the cash. That dreaded capitalism that most libs detest so very much. Do you for one minute think that those "pro-choice" groups would work so hard for this "right" if it weren't do darn profitable?

Recently there was a news story about a young woman who gave birth and then "chose" to stab the child multiple times immediately after birth. She's a "murderer." The woman who "chooses" to have her child turned breech, hold it's head in the birth canal so it cannot come out and take a breath before the abortionist can suck its brains out- she's got a "right" to do that. The outcome is the same. The "choice" was the same. It seems to me that the crime was not paying the abortionist.

Bill D: loved the lethal injection comment!

good point wildflowers
This isn't just an issue that "social conservatives" believe is important. My sister is the most liberal person I know, basically a socialist, and she believes abortion is wrong because it is killing an innocent human being. It is not her bottom line issue, so it wouldn't affect her vote or anyone's standing in the polls, but as hearts and minds in this country change, the politicians will change their views to reflect those of the American public on this issue. (Which supports at least some restrictions on abortion, after all we restrict other "rights" such as the right to bear arms.) I don't see this as solely a "religious right" issue at all.
As for the money making aspect, I checked out the Planned Parenthood website to see if they could make a case for when partial birth abortion is ever necessary and they have a big old pop up ad that asks you to contribute to stop the "abortion ban". (Really, talk about dishonesty in rhetoric. If they don't want to use the term partial birth, they could call it D&X.) Then once you click out of that, several other opportunities to donate now to stop the "abortion ban". I'll bet plenty of uneducated women take them at their word and don't even realize they can still kill their late-term unborn babies by dismemberment or chemical burning. So, they fork over their money to PP because it would be a dark, dark day in this country if we couldn't suck out the brains of babies before they are born.

wildflower
Good post.
They also want to be able to "harvest" stem cells from the aborted children in order to "research". How much do you think abortion docotors/clinics are going to get payed to "harvest" and turn over these cells? I haven't seen a number about that--wonder why? To me they want to make money at both ends of the bloody death system they have going.

Right Wing Extremist even support choice
The partial birth abortion law has not stopped one abortion so there is no victory here, other than it stopped one cruel method, in favor of another being possibly worse. The law was intended not to stop any abortion nor will abortion ever be banned.

The law was an encouragement and feel good gesture as a thank you for the trillions that have been contributed to campaigns for the issue of abortion. Abortion probably brings in $300M every 4 years to the parties as an election issue. You will start seeing the mailers in 9 months asking for money so the other party doesn’t get their judges in and impact abortion. After some 30+ years and $billions spent on campaigns for this issue we got a feel good do nothing partial birth abortion bill. Can you imagine how many trillions it would take to actually stop one abortion?

Look Bush increased spending on Planned Parenthood more than any prior president. In TX worked for years to engineer the most devious tactic to avoid parental notification and also named a hwy. after the number 1 abortion doctor in the state in spite of howls from the Repub legislature. The Bush clan has always been firmly pro abort and that is why he promised the public he’ll nominate judges that will respect Roe v Wade. Yeah, I know Bush 1 went pro-life when selected as Reagan’s VP and stayed there until his presidency ended. Big deal, Gore & Klinton switched to pro-death for their run for the crown.

As Sloo properly points out above, where in the Constitution does the court have the right to interpret a jurisdiction to decide abortion. In the Roe v Wade decision the court stated it isn’t sure it had jurisdiction, but went ahead and took it anyway. Remember, there was no way on this planet that the legislature would have ever passed such a law, this is judicial tyranny that Jefferson warned about. What is fooling everybody is that Alito and Roberts stated they would defend abortion under the legal anti-constitutional argument of stare decisis (settled law). Their vote this week was merely stare decisis, not some vote on constitutionality or a position against abortion.

Anyway this decision in no way impacts a women’s choice. The most fundamentalist right wing extremist supports a women’s right to choose, what they have a problem with is giving her a right to avoid the consequences and responsibility of her choices. Conservatives respect her choice to have sex, what she does not have is a right to kill the consequences and responsibility of that choice.

The feminist cry, we are victims and need control over the results of our choices. This actually is admission that they need help with their choices not that they need help with the consequences. Therefore, we should outlaw abortion, and for those that claim they need protection from the result of their inability to control their choices, we compassionately provide sterilization, forced birth control or as I actually know of being done with a next door neighbor, be sowed up to protect themselves from themselves (needless to say, a fabulous story for another day).

TruLib
"Before we can formulate the perfect society it has to be understood that there is no higher authority than man."

History should tell you that Mao, Stalin, Hitler (who forced Jewish women to have abortions)and Pol Pot believed that they were the "higher authority" of their times and that they were "formulating the perfect society."

Science and logic should tell you that the human fetus, if left undisturbed to recieve the nutrition provided by the womb, grows to be the "man" you speak of in such lofty terms.

God help a society that sincerely believes that it's highest authority is man.


right wing extreminsts
I just love how we who are pro-life have gotten that label.
We are "extremist" for wanting to stop a woman from doing herself harm physically and emotionally by having an abortion. We are "extremists" for trying to point out to young girls that 40 weeks of being pregnant really isn't that long. We are "extremists" for wanting to gives girls hope that if they give up their child for adoption then it will go to a family that will love it. We are "extremists" for understanding that once you have destroyed a life inside of yourself you cannot just walk away and live like nothing happened. We are "extremists" for volunterring in couseling centers where woman seek help to understand the emotional fallout from their abortion. We are "extremeists" because we have heard and seen the impact of abortion on society and have decided to stand up and say this insanity must end.
This ban is a token move--we all know it, but we need to keep fighting. And if it is "extremist" of me to want to help a girl not destroy her own phsychi and life by having 1 or more abortions. I am an extremist.

Right on!!
Great article. The most disturbing thing about this debate is Justice Ginsburg's comment in paragraph #4 where she sub-consciously lets us know that she doesn't place any stock in the Constitution she is supposed to interpet by. It is little wonder that she is O/K with using foreign law to justify her position in her decisions or to make up positions altogether. Its also probably why she was so upset that her long time (and still) liberal ally, Justice Kennedy, who showed he could still write a correct opinion, would dare side with the rascally conservative "Fab 4" on the Court.
If she retired a year ago it would be to soon!!!!!

Facts vs. Hysteria
Patial Birth Abortion has no scientific meaning. Which I think is a good place to start this discussion.

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Looking that the last ten years, if one adds up the pro-abortion columns of "Legal in All Cases" and "Legal in Most Cases" one gets 54% in 2007 and 58% in 1996. Likewise for "illegal in all cases" added with "illegal in most cases" one gets 43% in 2007 and 39% in 1996. Arguably the right wing has managed to persuade 4% more people in the last 10 years to ban abortion.

Thenethere are 62% who oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, with 9% unsure, or 71% do no agree with the right wing about making abortion illegal.

So those are the facts.

Here is the hysteria.

Conservatives use the imagery, not the moral arguments, of "Partial Birth Abortion" and a baby being partially delivered except for the head and the brains being sucked out to convince people that PBA is wrong.

Hysteria, not facts.

Fact is that, as been stated to the Supreme Court, most of the pregnancies were by women who wanted the child. Duh. Image you get told in the second or third trimester that the odds of your baby living past the first year or first hour are less than 1%.

The hysteria surrounding partial birth abortion is no different than the hysteria surrounding Terry Schiavo. Every day hundreds of people make the decision to pull the plug on a loved one. The public overwhelming agreed by a similar margin of 70% that the decision to pull the plug on a dying loved one was a private, family decision. The only difference is that in the case of a PBA, the chord is umbilical and not a feeding tube. Hysterical Congress passed a law to keep Terry Schiavo on life support. The irony of course is that Tom Delay himself had made a similar decision with his own father.

Partial Birth Abortion decisions are being made by women and their families who wanted their child but are told scientifically that the baby will not be viable outside the womb. That is a terrible decision to make. No different than making the decision to pull the feeding plug on dying loved one.

The fact is that the women who have these abortions wanted a child and are given a most terrible choice. Have a baby which will die, or have a PBA.

Of course you will never encounter this moral dilemma in conservative writing. Every conservative who is 100% against PBA discounts any and all notion that baby is going to die once outside the womb. In fact, they believe the women just woke up, "said I don't feel like having the baby today" and went to a doctor who callously says "I have no problem killing this baby right before birth, here ya go."

PBA as an argument that works for conservatives does so precisely because it is a hysterical argument a not a moral one. The image of pulling the baby out of the body, sucking its brains out, and crushing its skull is what works. They will never talk about the tough choice a woman and family is faced with once they are told that in all likelihood the baby will die soon after birth. Sometimes they are told that the baby is already dying in the second trimester.

The fact is that women who have PBA wanted the child to begin with. Which is something else conservatives will not discuss.

Facts vs. Hysteria. Nothing damages the credibility of the conservative movement more than its penchance for Terry Schiavo like hysteria. It alienates all reasonable people and PBA is just another hysterical example.

Imagine you get told that your baby has little chance of survival outside of the womb and that ten's of thousands of dollars of medical costs will be incurred keeping the baby alive until it dies. And then that happens. Then you get told you cannot do anyting about it because Congress passed the PBA act. Fortunately that's not the case.






Liz
Putting man at the top of the list is exactly what the left has to do in order to implement it's agenda. That is why religion must be driven from the public square.

I doubt that the aim of any of the named despots was to really form a perfect society unless you consider slavery perfection.

women's rights
There are other surgical methods that will be utilized. This has done nothing more than increase the mother's risk in certain medical situations where this was the safer method. The supreme court has just increased the mothers risk of uterine perforations. This is, truly, a blow to women's rights, physicians ability to provide the safest care, and women's safety.

Simple solution
These women who believe it is ok to kill a fully developed child just becuase it isn't full "born" need a wake up call. They don't mind killing their children as long as they don't have to do it themselves. So, let's make them do it if they want it done so badly.

Allow the birth to occur, when the childs head is visible, give the murderer, oh, I mean give the mother a scapel and tell them how they must do it. Maybe give them a gun and tell them to shot the child in the head. Better yet, have a detailed class with detailed visuals well before she goes into labor or decides to 'abort' the child and then make her do it.

If the mother had to do the deed I can almost totally guarentee partial birth abortions would drop to almost zero.

What is it that they don't understand about the fact that it is murder, First Degree Homocide.

How much?
Does anyone know how much the average abortion costs? Multiplied by how many per year? Just how much money is at stake?
Bill I too cracked up at the lethal injection comment.

drivebyposting
OK would you then be willing to limit all abortions, especially PBA, to those in which the baby will "die anyway?" I'll compromise there, for now, if you will.

Texas
There is a great case one can use to stage an abortion debate.

Recently, in the Great State of Texas, there was a case where woman was tried for murder, convicted and then the conviction overturned. The mother was convicted of murdering her unborn baby by taking a gun and shooting herself and the unborn baby and with the intent of killing it.

Many states already have laws on the books that if someone else kills an unborn by shooting it then that person can be tried for murder. But what about if that someone is the mother?

The conviction was overturned because the shooting was ruled to be an abortion.

You have to ask yourself a simple question:

If abortion on demand where legal until birth, why go to the tramatic bother of shooting yourself?

The simple answer is that abortion on demand is only legal in the FIRST TRIMESTER. Roe v. Wade sets up restrictions in the second and most serverely the third trimester.

That's right folks you can be denied an abortion in this country. How many conservatives know that?

There are illegal abortions that happen every day in this country outside the law of Roe v. Wade.

Now, if you go to informed conservative web sites, as opposed to Town Hall op eds, they know this. And when you discuss this topic with them the argument is that the health restrictions in Roe are so open ended that a doctor can simply claim "mental health" and essentially give abortion on demand. So now we are getting down to brass tacks. It's not that Roe v. Wade legalized abortion on demand in all cases, its that the health restrictions were not well defined.

Which is where the Texas case comes in. Obviously someone who is willing to shoot themselves to abort a baby has mental health issues. Yet rather than try and navigate the "mental health" options in getting an abortion she shot herself because abortion-on-demand in the third trimester is available.

If one looks at Roe v. Wade, it wouldn't take much for Congress to update certain key provisions that could prevent easy thwarting of the existing health restrictions. The government could demand, for example, that a psychatrist give a confirmed second opinion about the "mental health" risks. Perhaps if a psychatrist had seen the poor women in Texas prior to her gun incident something could've been done.

Point is that third trimester abortions are illegal in this country, doctors will refuse to do them and illegal abortions in the third trimester happen in this country.

In fact one could ask the question "are there more illegal third tri-mester abortions in this country than legal ones?" I actually know the answer to this, but facts are hard to come by because statitics are difficult to find.

But the Texas case is a good one to quiz conservatives on. How many conservatives know the the restricitions Roe v. Wade places on abortions in the second the third tri-mesters? How many conservatives realize that a few simple key revisions to the health qualifications could dramatically improve Roe v. Wade?

The answer is very few. Most conservatives who are against abortion believe that Roe v. Wade grants abortion-on-demand rights until the baby is born. Which is simply not true. But this explains why you will never see conservatives talk about plugging the gaps in the "mental health" elastic claus, because the ignorance of knowing that Roe puts restrictions on abortions in the first place.





"Facts" are off
DBP submits the facts. Fact: We don't have the "facts" on the circumstances surrounding PBA because many have worked diligently to protect that data. Several times there have been attempts to obtain the data anonymously so the "facts" surrounding PBA and other late term abortion procedures can be reviewed, but the usuals scream "violation of privacy" and block any and all attempts to review the data and have an honest debate about facts. If you think that data you listed are "fact" you're an easy sell. The fact is, abortionists are not required to report their data. They are not required to report indications, complications, deaths related to abortions. (Interesting, the rest of the medical world is required to report all of those items on all medical procedures and that information is readily available to insurance companies, medicare, organizations compiling medical data etc. So much for preserving privacy there.) At any rate, search deeper. Remember, this is the same crowd that tried to convince you late term abortions were necessary to "save the life" of the mother. You probably bought that too.

Speaking of hysteria, that's a great description of the "pro-choice" crowd right now. The sky is falling!! They've banned one of our late term abortion procedures. We're being forced to go back to the neanderthal times where women are oppressed!!!! Why, however shall we live??!! PBA ban is oppressive, but Shari'a law is apparently ok as we never hear the NOW types get hysterical about that. Fascinating.

Driveby you really need to search deeper
Come on man. Stop with the hysteria will you. Apparently you don't know that the states set the perameters on when abortions are legal and yes, there are states that DO allow third trimester abortions. Why IL has even been working diligently to allow "live birth abortions" (supported strongly by Obama) In those cases, in failed abortions (ie baby was born alive) they are left to die. They are not fed etc and left to die. Try this, pretend you are a pregnant woman "who wants her baby" and you need a late term abortion because it's not going to survive when it's born and do some homework and find out which states you can travel to and have a late term abortion done. They're out there. Didn't you just argue that late term abortions were available in your prior post about PBA?

I want
"I'll compromise there, for now, if you will."

What I want? I doubt if you would seriously want to live in a world that I want. For example, I believe the right to self-defense should be unfettered, which includes owning hand-grenades, tanks, and any other weapon. You shouldn't have to get a license to get a gun. What I want is for everyone to have a gun and computer given to them at birth.

See, that's the problem with conservative politics.

We live in a Democracy. When one talks about public policy one needs to "factor in" what the "majority wants".

The majority wants privacy with respect to "end of life" decisions as well as "beginning of life".

The problem is that conservatives today refuse to factor in the Democratic will. Instead they take on absolute positions based upon their own individual beliefs.

What is religion? Religion defines nothing less than the moral world you live in. With the first amendment comes the acknowlegement of freedom of religion, freedom of different moral world views.

A government that manages freedom of religion has to manage freedom of differing moral world views, to the point where those morals so conflict that opposing religions can see each other as evil.

Just ask Jehovah Witnesses what they think of the Catholics, or vice-versa.

Public policy then in a "freedom of religion" society is about d**n ugly moral compromises. I think the lack of moral certitude of the responsibility for self-defense in this country could cause its collapse. But, we live in a country were fear of guns rules the day over eternal vigilence of freedom. We are willing to accept 50,000 deaths/year in car accidents but only 1,000 for guns.

To wit, conservatives today never factor in their moral minority position when they are in the minority. They want absolute rules of their choosing.

I think that PBA sent the wrong message to those opposed to abortion. I think that engaging those opposed to abortion in dialog about shoring up the loop-holes in Roe v. Wade would have been a much better approach. But dialog requires allowing that ones morals can be compromised, something a society with religious freedom must have but conservatives today are unwilling to accept.

It's not about "I". It's about admiting the flaws of living in a Democracy.




DBP
It was a simple question. I don't see that you have answered it.

drivebyposting - lives in hysterics
Calm down drivebyposting. The only thing that this article discussed was partial birth abortion, a legal decision, not a scientific breakthrough. If you want it back, just say so and defend it. But your babbling hystical rant on everything Conservative makes no sense. Except maybe your personal therapy. Maybe it works.

Save the (Future) Cheerleader
I am opposed to abortion (in most cases, not all). I'm also opposed to child abuse. My reasonning is similar in both cases. The fact that an unborn child is helpless & can't fight back doesn't make it alright to abort him (or her). Is my reasoning defective? Thanks, I didn't think so.

In addition:

I’m doing several pieces on Fox News. I am very much a conservative, but I have problems with the network. Well, remember the man who went to see a fight (boxing match) -- and a hockey game broke out? On my site, I've asked a few fairly innocent (?) questions about Fox News, and a pitched battle ensued. It's not a struggle between Left and Right, but among conservatives struggling to define the "soul" of Fox News. If you'd like to join in and make comments (and view the carnage), visit me by clicking on my name above. "The more the merrier."


Steve (charter member of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy")



drive by
Your propose that the Partial birth abortions are done on babies that would die anyway, therefore it's ok to just kill them early.You contend that if conservatives just simply understood this the debate would somehow magically go away.

Not true. To be told the baby in your womb is not likely viable is difficult news to be sure. But to hold a baby in your arms, however briefly, and watch as it takes even one breath of life, is a far more attractive alternative than allowing it's brains to be suctioned out and consenting to its being torn limb from limb!

You cannot caress a dismembered foot and call it sweet. But to hold a whole baby, warm from the womb, even in death, is a gift of healing that abortion cannot replace.

Roe v Wade Corrupts Society
Roe v Wade, as I see it, is bad law. It upholds that a woman solely has the power of life or death over a fetus. If so, how does a live birth ever become the responsibility of a man, a family or society? If none of them have a say in the "Live or Die" decsision, their roles become nothing more than inconsequential observers. Man becomes nothing more than a sperm doner and the family and society become victims of an abitrary personal choice of a woman. As long as Roe v Wade survives, it begs that babies are soley a woman's personal and private decision or problem. If a baby is soley a personal choice of the mother, how does child support, education, health benefits and other such gifts become the responsibilities of others? Babies need to be a family decsion. Roe v Wade corrupts that bond.

I hope the abortion activists get noisy.
I hope they have rallies, and raise and spend lots of money, and really raise the public's awareness of partial birth abortion.

I hope they make their positions clear to the whole nation, and I pray that politicians aligned with them declare themselves as such.

I hope the debate is dragged out long and hard. All they can do is show the shallowness of their position, and illogic and untruthfulness of their arguments, which are the same ones they use for other abortions.

They're fighting on our turf now. Even many liberals are disgusted with partial birth abortion. There is no medical, ethical, rational difference between partial birth abortion and infanticide.

And the difference between abortion and partial birth abortion are little greater.


As for Roe vs. Wade
It will eventually collapse of the weight of its own illogic. If the Supreme Court had found a constitutional right for parents to commit infanticide, it would have been less eduring but no less temporary.

Some day it will be sent back to the legislature. Speaking of which, the legislature can't make a law conflicting with that ruling, but there's no reason that Democrats in the legislatures couldn't vote to affirm the decision in Roe vs. Wade and to make it law.

How about it Dems? Care to make it part of your platform? Perhaps the activist trolls who post here can get their party on board in case Hillary turns out to be too shrill to win a national race, or Obamamamma's 18 month journey in politics isn't enough to win him the Nation's highest office.

You'd Support Abortion if You Were Smart
Yup that is driveby's claim. If you were merely as smart and well informed as driveby you'd also want abortion. You see the problem is not judicial tyranny, it is the stupidity of the electorate.

Well folks, we didn't have an abortion divide in AmeriKa until we had judicial tyranny that has been running rampant since Lincoln. The states were handling it just the way their populace wanted it handled.

I'm actually not sure how long you can legislate against the laws of nature? Does anybody know of any animals in nature where half support the killing of their young as they exit the womb. I ask this because clearly right wing extremist will defer to God on the issue, so clearly they are nut jobs. But the brilliant enlightened folks will naturally defer to the laws of nature using empericism and scientism are the tools of the enlightened. So using their Gnostic Gods do we have any proof that this is a common law of nature to kill your child at birth.

If it isn't a law of God's nature and it isn't a law of God, then under what authority do they claim this "right" to kill. I already explained earlier that we grant them the choice to have sex, we don't grant the choice to avoid the consequences and responsiblities of your choices. So how do they explain under what authority abortion/murder is good business to the morons, so they can get on board. Heck, morons obviously don't want to be birthing het more morons.

my 2 cents
If it's growing it's alive - life begins at conception and continues through until natural death.

If mothers have the right to abortion..
before birth, I think fathers should have abortion rights after birth. If the fetus gets all smart-mouthy, and won't do its homework or take out the trash, then there is obviously some birth defect present. The dad should be able to take it down to a clinic and suck out its brains. Equal rights for men, I say!

posts
Isn't it wonderful that you don't really need to READ the post? you know automatically that the neverending, mile long post is just pure baloney .
Time saved - measure the post like baloney
What pomposity!! more words-more words - then you'll believe me - laughable

Parttal birth abortion
How many partial birth abortions are done?
I don't know the answer, but would like to.
How many are done because a bad fetus-some serious defect that would be incompatible with survival or a reasonable quality of life?
I don't know the answer, but I would think that that the percentage would be less than 1%.
How many are done to save the life or the physical health of the mother?
I think it would be a very low percentate if any.
I would be glad to know that facts about this.

An ob friend of mine told me that there is no medical or obstetriccal indication for a partial birth abortion.
It is my opinion that most abortions are done for tne convenience of the pregnant woman and to make up for her lack of responsibilty when she had sex.
What is the percentage of abortions done in cases of rape or incest? I don't know, but I think it is a very low percentage.
D W. Bales, M.D. retired internist

Phil
For the most part I think you are correct however there are a couple of really smart people here that go on at length.

Mine are kept short by the ADD.

Drivebyposting, I rarely even
read your posts, much less respond to them but I take issue with your words, "We live in a Democracy." Last I checked we lived in a
Constitutional Republic. Big difference there, however,from my experience, this is a common misconception coming from most liberals.

If interested, go check out Kevin

drive-by-poster has an incorrect basis
drive-by-poster has an incorrect basis for his beliefs. He believe that our country is a democracy. He is wrong. We live in a democratic republic, which is very much different than a democracy. If you don't understand the difference, that is truly your problem!

He was going on about how he/she thinks that every person should get a gun and a computer at birth. What kind of non-sense is that? You have a right to bear arms, the government doesn't have a responsibility to give you a gun! Idiot!

TruLib
You said that religion must be driven from the public arena. Why, so we can have your religion of humanism, which the supreme court ruled is a religion. You would take one and substituted for another, The deification of man. It is true man got himself into this mess, but he will must surely not get hiomself out.

greigpreacher
You need to slow down and read. Re-read my post and see if you can figure out what I mean.

true lib
good job trulib, you've had people going all day.

Roe v Wade
Does anyone here realize that Roe of Roe v Wade was a woman named Norma McCorvey who is now a born-again Christian, living in Texas, involved in ministry. She has spoken extensively on the fact that, at the time of Roe v Wade, she was a very young woman, in trouble and basically was "used" as a pawn in a historical, political game by a bunch of powerful, manipulative, so-called women's rights activists with only one agenda... legalize abortion. Roe v Wade was one of the sleaziest, shadiest, most conniving cases pushed through by some of the most twisted and powerful people at that time... supporters, today, would have you believe it was passed, supported and settled by the courts, the legislature, and all of America... perfectly legal and what America wanted.... bull crap!!!! people were used and manipulated, money flowed like a river, laws were broken, power was abused, and crimes were committed to "make it happen."

I Am Waiting
I have read many posts in which right-wingers state their great love of children, whom they do not want aborted by a mother who doesn't want her baby.

What I am still waiting for is help for unwanted babies who do get born. I read about these babies all the time in my morning paper. They have been stomped to death, thrown against a wall, smashed in the belly by an angry fist, starved to death, scalded in bathtubs, drowned in buckets, and left in dumpsters to die alone. When they are infants, their crime is often stated as "wouldn't stop crying". After they become toddlers, it's that they wet or soiled themselves or said "No".

"Let them be adopted by a loving family" is glibly stated by people who have never worked in adoptions and don't know what they are talking about. A typical scenario is that a pregnant girl (who may have gotten pregnant by accident or design) expects to use the pregnancy (and/or the baby) as an instrument to secure or maintain relationship with its father or in some other way to use the fact of this child to get something she wants. When this ploy fails, she is stuck with an unwanted child. Tragedy sometimes ensues.

Also, there aren't enough "loving adoptive families" to accommodate all the needy minority babies in our society.

You may call abortion a tragedy if you wish. But I fail to see that forcing the birth of children into a situation so desperate that they may be abused, neglected, and even killed AFTER they have become sentient individuals, is any less tragic, in fact I think it is much worse. I would very much prefer to see abortion kept safe and legal.

Conservatives think like children. The world is simple. Everything is good or evil. Stories have happy endings.

Adoption discrimination
lilly writes: Sunday, April, 22, 2007 8:51 AM

Also, there aren't enough "loving adoptive families" to accommodate all the needy minority babies in our society.
-------------------------------
Actually, you know there are. The unfortunate part of the conservation that liberals want to cover up is that they have instituted discrimination against adoptive parents not of the right color. Parents in America that want to simply adopt a child cannot without meeting the politically correct racial makeup or playing the foster system gamble. Lilly, you should stop lying for you cause and start helping children by tearing down segregation in the progressive's compassionate adoption laws that force thousands of parts to go to outside countries every year as opposed to extorted $50,000 plus to get around racial discrimination legally enforced in adoption requirements.

Re: lilly
Well, your comments remind me of Britney Spears. Britney went to Vegas and got married. 24 hours later she divorced the guy. Surely if one had to take a qualifying test to get married in the first place Britney would've flunked the marriage test.

Fact is that freedom is guaranteed to all without qualification. No matter how unsuited one is to get married or have children, you are free to do so. I wish I could say the same for owning a gun, but alas, our country has forgotten that rights are promised to all.

Quite simply in this country is doesn't matter how unqualified mentally, emotionally or physically one is to raise a child, or what ones motives are. You have the constitutional right to have a child and to get married. So should it be for owning a gun.

Living in the land of the free comes with risks.

So, I take exception with your premise that parents are obligated to want a child. Unwanted, accidental pregnancies happen every day to folks in America who do not believe in abortion. The children of these parents have to pay the price.

If you wish to see a good expose on the hypocrisy of the right wing, I'd recommend watching the movie "Citizen Ruth" with Laura Dern.

But the error of your arguments are very revealing when it comes to how conservatives argue gay marriage. They use your faulty premise that marriage somehow has qualfication.

Mrriage is a fundamental right as deemed by the Supreme Court.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1&friend=nytimes

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).

-----------

Now, when gay marriage opponents start raising standards as to why gay marriage should not be allowed, they fall into the same trap you do. There are no qualifications to get married. Old people who are incapable of having kids are perfectly allowed to get married.

There are no standards applied to marriage and having children. Any miscreant, evil, dispacable person can marry another and have kids an often do.

Claiming gays are unfit for marriage violates the main tenet of rights, which is we all have them regardless of qualification. We all have the right to free speech and we all the right to sit on a jury. Although I believe England's professional jury system is much better and I think our Constitution should be revised to "paid professional peers".

The only valid argument against gay marriage is simply to exact tyranny on them and oppress them because the majority chooses to do so. Populist, direct democracy, State amendments are just that. Expressions of outright will my the majority to oppress the minority for no reason other than the hate the minority.

Americans have lost sight that rights are guaranteed to all without qualification. Everyone has the right to marry. Everyone has the right to have children. Everyone should have the right to own a gun. How crazy is it that the very people we deny guns can have children?

Freedom is not about guaranteeing safety or architecting the ideal, utopian society. Quite the opposite. Freedom is quite the opposite. Freedom is about giving everyone the right to self-determination in the face of group tyranny.

People should look to govern themselves first and rely on government second. Self defense, self-determination should be in everyone's mind their own responsibility and their own value.

One of the prices of freedom is that everyone is guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of their own choosing.

Like Jefferson I believe the best government is when no government exists but the people choose to govern themselves.

If my arguments seem strange to you then that is because conservatives have lost sight of conservativism.

If you are a drug addict, alcoholic, mentally unstable bum with no money and completely rejected by society at large, you still have the right to have a child and get married, no matter how irresponsible it may appear to the community at large. You should also have the right to defend yourself and own a gun. To this day I do not understand how just becuase one is an ex-felon and ex-felons by a margin of 75% commit all murders they can be denied a gun. We can come up with similar statics about groups of unfit people to be parents. Yet they still have the fundamental right to marry have kids.

In a free society no matter how likely one is to break the law, you cannot have your rights impinged until you are found guilty of committing a crime. That's what it means to be free.

The true hypocrisy of the conservative movement is that they are all for the tyranny of the direct Democracy majority when it comes to gay marriage and enacting State laws via ballot measures. When the shoe is on the other foot and you show them that if direct Democracy where used to guarantee that Roe v. Wade were to not beoverturned, then by a percentage of 69% Americans would vote to keep Roe.

It seems conservatives are only willing to support direct Democracy tyranny when it suits their agenda. That is their true hypocrisy. As a conservative I believe that everyone should be free, free of tyranny, free to self-determination and self-defense.

The only valid argument about abortion is whether that right exists in the people or the state.

The federal constitution states that rights not enumerated therein are left to the states and the people.

Roe should be overturned because abortion rights should not be federally determined. I also believe the abortion rights should not be determined by the state. I believe that abortion rights should be left to the individual.

The next time someone says they believe abortion is murder, ask them if they are willing to convict on those principles. Accessory to murder is considered felony murder. That means if a mother has an abortion then the father, doctor and anyone who knew the woman was premeditating and planning to have the abortion should be tried for murder and given capital punishment. All people convicted should be ajudicated no different than Scott Peterson, including special exceptions for death penalty. If someone is not prepared to see the mother, father and doctor executed by lethal injection for committing said murder then they are do not believe it is murder.

The fact is without agreement on what killing a unborn baby truly means then neither the state or federall government has any business regulating the right and it should be left to the individual.

First define Unwanted
lilly writes: “….I Am Waiting…What I am still waiting for is help for unwanted babies who do get born.” They have been stomped to death, thrown against a wall, ….” "Let them be adopted by a loving family" is glibly stated by people who have never worked in adoptions and don't know what they are talking about.” “Also, there aren't enough "loving adoptive families" to accommodate all the needy minority babies in our society.” “But I fail to see that forcing the birth of children into a situation so desperate that they may be abused, neglected, and even killed AFTER they have become sentient individuals, is any less tragic, in fact I think it is much worse. I would very much prefer to see abortion kept safe and legal. Conservatives think like children. The world is simple. Everything is good or evil. Stories have happy endings.”


Abusing children is the exception, not the rule. It is bad law when you make law for the exception not the norm. Furthermore, promoting abortion as the solution to child abuse is as insane as promoting chainsaws to cut your head off for the solution of a runny nose.

You are deeply confused about what is an unwanted baby. Is an unwanted baby something you abort because you may be slightly plump to fit in your favorite dress for the gala ball and you don’t think you can find a bigger dress in time? Or is unwanted after you have listened to your friend’s suggestion to abort so you don’t have to miss hitting the bars on Sat with your pals, or is it after that planned parenthood, using Fed funds, offers you a price to abort you can’t refuse? Or is it after you weren’t that concerned whether you got pregnant or not so you didn’t take birth control seriously?

Or is it after you passed by all the motives to abort and still decide to have the child? I ask this because you claim it is both. But in the later case where folks after much social encouragement to abort, never the less still choose life, you then claim that they enter into child abuse because the child is unwanted when clearly if it was unwanted before birth it would have been aborted, abortion no more difficult than the aggravation of buying a car or going to a dentist. So my question to the liberal mind is do they become unwanted before they are born or after and if after, who is to decide who the child abusers will be before hand. Naturally liberals will want laws forcing them to abort against their will and then put them in jail because liberals can tell “thought crimes” before hand, that they would clearly be child abusers if allowed birth.

In short you create what is called a moral hazard. The more you promote or finance something, the more you will get of it. If you promote life is less valuable than running with the girls on Sat night or attending the gala than clearly you will get more daily killings and music to inform us about the "garbage" of life that is expendable.

Many parents beg their daughters not to abort, but let them raise the child. And in my city, mid size, we have a large charity supported (Christian churches) crisis pregnancy center that arranges adoptions for all that want to go that direction. In other cities folks are willing to adopt and are often paying $25-50K fee to a for profit agency to just find a child and then sit on long waiting list. Others learn of a pregnant girl and will pay her $25k just to bribe her to give up the baby. Others get so frustrated waiting to adopt that they go to Africa and the old Soviet countries and adopt maimed, diseased, and AIDs children at even greater cost and heartache. Why do they do this? Well there is something wired in the normal animal that they want babies and will even take on those that are not their own, just like cats, dogs, and other animals may do. I have seen animals adopt other species. Truly there is something that normal animals instinctively yearn for, best understood if you merely watch Animal Planet or such show and see the baby animals that most viewers are just cooing over and saying to each other, I wish I could just huge that baby lion, panda bear, etc. and take it home. It is some kind of nature thing that obviously I can’t explain to you, and you just have to quantitatively witness it in your world.

Liberals continually create what is known as moral hazard They propose policies that violate the laws of nature and when they fail, they demand that the policy is not strong enough or we didn’t put enough trillions into their scheme. In short, no liberal program ever fails, it’s perverted consequences (the moral hazard) is the fault of the greedy right that doesn’t want to double funding for another 30 years, or the other trick is that we need to compliment it with yet another new program for it to work.

So it is with abortion. We create a scenario that abortion is basically just a preferred birth control method supported with Fed funds and huge marketing by the feminist so that killing your kids is perfectly a normal function of the laws of nature and the animal kingdom. However, this creates a moral hazard that life is worthless and we have all the consequences we are now dealing with, that didn’t exist 40 years ago as an everyday event. This will always happen when law violates the laws of nature.

OK, so where are we once we get away from the liberal’s game of false alternatives and making up their own irrational definitions. We are at the junction that 5 men in black robes usurped the Constitution by making law, instead of the legislature doing it. Because neither have a Constitutional right to make law about behavior and moral values, we’ve been in a national crisis that has festered for 30+ years.

The simple solution is that the court undo the bad law that even the most rabid pro-choice legal scholars like Ely, dean of Stanford Law school, honesty states it is horrendous law. Then each state will take back their rights and decide for itself how abortion will be handled. Clearly, most states, if not all will have it, but may have different parameters on notifications, terms etc. If one or two Bible states should not provide such, than the person merely drives 100 miles to have one in the next state safe and sound.

What will be stopped is the most odious aspect of abortion, forcing folks who are against it to pay for others to have it paid for by taxes. G W Bush has increased planned parenthood funding a greater % than any prior president.

It's not about abortion!
Having just spent too much time reading the screeds from liberals, I realize that it's their unfiltered, grinding gut hatred of Conservatives that is their basic motivation. Why else all this other chaff about guns, religion, gays and democracy? Stick to the topic! I am a registered Democrat and do not ascribe to any religious creed that tells me how to think, but I know murder when I see it. The rest is commentary.

What a Monument...
... to freedom, progress and female equality: a pair of scissors puncturing the skull of a perfectly viable baby. Let us all hope and pray that that "old guard" of feminists Ms. Dannenfelser refers to in her column passes away -- and quickly.

Dear lilly
I am waiting for liberal whiners like you to wise up and realize that it is the job of PARENTS to raise children, and not the job of your god, the state. Please move on to Moveon!

Dear TruLib
RE: "I doubt that the aim of any of the named despots (Hitler, Stalin, etc.) was to really form a perfect society unless you consider slavery perfection." Are you for real? That was precisely the goal of Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels and their ideological descendents. As to your reference to "slavery," Marx even said that during the time of transition between capitalism and pure communism would be marked by "despotic inroads on the rights of property" ("Proletarians and Communists," The Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848). And indeed, leftists who have acted in Mr. Marx's name have made the argument that, while it is lamentable that communist governments must commit atrocities, that short-term suffering is the price that must be paid for progress and that short-term suffering will be more than compensated for once humanity enjoys the perfect society for all time to come. What books, TruLib, have you been reading?

Who will be at risk
This decision doesn't put libertine women at risk. It puts doctors, who now have a wild card when making the life and death decision whether to save the mother or the baby.

I pray that none of you face what the father of one of my childhood playmates faced when his mother died in childbirth because the policy of the Catholic hospital was to sacrifice the mother for the sake of the child. He had five children to raise while running a business. He lost the business and his house.

That one experience gave me the conviction to never be a Roman Catholic and to support the right to abortion.

To Barry Tumwater
You pose a false dilemma. In the findings supporting the federal ban on partial birth abortion, the procedure was found by Congress never to be necessary. Partial birth abortion is simply a gruesome procedure that should call into question your belief in abortion as a "right."

Keep in mind that the partial birth abortion decision was a constitutional decision -- that is, all that was decided was that the U.S. Constitution does not protect as a matter of constitutional right the partial birth abortio procedure. A democratically elected Congress passed the ban on partial birth abortion, and a democratically elected President signed it into law.

When To Abort?

Does anybody think it is possible (and permissible) for a woman to have an Abortion before her fetus becomes a human being?

Lilly
When was the last time you looked at the waiting lists of families wishing to adopt "unwanted" children? Or adopted one yourself, for that matter?

When was the last time any of you so-called "pro-choicers" staffed a crisis pregnancy center on a volunteer basis? Or contributed in any other way to its running and upkeep? Or took in a pregnant teen? Or helped her put the pieces back together after she's realized just what she's done in exercising her "right to choose"?

Or is it just easier to let others have the compassion, since all you've apparently got time for is driving her to the nearest abortion mill?

They just haven't thought it through
Why shouldn't their own mothers have aborted THEM? How many abortion supporters have ever gone to their Mom and said "Mom, thanks for deciding you were ready to have me, or I wasn't too inconvenient. Thanks for not killing me".

None. Because they just assume, based on the fact that they are here NOW, they had the right to live. But according to abortion mentality, they DIDN'T have the right to live. They are just lucky.

In response to Lilly
"What I am still waiting for is help for unwanted babies who do get born. I read about these babies all the time in my morning paper. They have been stomped to death, thrown against a wall, smashed in the belly by an angry fist, starved to death, scalded in bathtubs, drowned in buckets, and left in dumpsters to die alone. When they are infants, their crime is often stated as "wouldn't stop crying". After they become toddlers, it's that they wet or soiled themselves or said "No". "

The things you describe are horrible, they demonstrate just how little love some mothers (and fathers) have for their own young.

Abortion ALSO results in the death of a human being, and also demonstrates just how little love some mothers have for their own young.

Abortion also shows how some otherwise caring women have been deceived by people who take the unscientific stance that a fetus is somehow not human, or that is is part of the mother's body despite not having her DNA.
Whether through callousness or confusion, however, a human being still is killed.

Dan874
"If I were to to assault a pregenant woman and kill her baby, I would be a murderer. But it's fine for a doctor to do it. We can't have it both ways."

Dan: Doctors don't kill babies; women kill babies. Also, it is a misnomer to call a woman who has an abortion a 'mother' - by definition, they have abdicated the role.

Until we start using the proper terms PROPERLY, and quit allowing the left to distort the argument by making up their own words and definitions, this society will continue to degenerate. This was the story of the Tower of Babel in the Bible.

For example: regarding that loony judicial decision ruling a gunshot to the abdoman was an 'abortion'. Preposterous! Why couldn't this be considered a suicide attempt which is attempted murder? Without medical treatment, this woman would most certainly have died.

It's all happened before; the only thing new is the history you're ignorant of. Progressive liberalism? Now there's a contradiction!

Abortion Rights Group Gives Up Search
Abortion Rights Group Gives Up Search – Changes Name (Again)

http://kilroyreport.townhall.com/

WASHINGTON, DC - Having spent over 30 years searching the U.S. Constitution for its alleged “right to abortion”, the group NARAL Pro-Choice America has announced today that it will discontinue the search and change its name to NAAARAL. “We felt it was important to project to the public the image that we are not a “pro-abortion” group. As such and effective immediately we’ll be known as the National Anti-Anti-Abortion Rights Action League”. By adopting the “Anti-Anti” insertion, we hope to convince the public that we are doubly against abortion as far as they know. We also hope that this change will stimulate donations and support from other NAAARAL minded groups such as the DNC for D&C” said NAAARAL President, Kimberly Muunbaht.

The epic search for the elusive right to abortion began in 1973 following the now infamous “16 word declaration” by then U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, wherein he described having “irrefutable evidence that the Constitution has established and continues to maintain an ongoing right to abortion”.

In announcing the NAAARAL decision to quit the search, Muunbaht, insisted that she continues to believe that the right to abortion exists “somewhere” and admitted to being frustrated by the failure to locate it. “Look, we had reliable intelligence that the Constitution had the right at some point but believe it’s since been moved. Quite frankly, when you are talking about a document the size of the Constitution, the clause could be anywhere. We could search for another 30 years and still not find it. That doesn’t mean that it’s not buried there somewhere, we just can’t devote any more resources to looking” Muunbaht said.

Sightings of the right have been reported as recently as the Clinton Administration by then National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. Rumors have circulated in recent years that someone in the Bush Administration has since moved the right to some unused section of the Constitution. Amateur “sleuth groups”, such as the Abortion Search Society, convinced of that theory, have taken to scouring the so called “freedom of religion” section of the First Amendment to no avail. “We were sure they hid it there,” stated A.S.S. researcher, Ruth Ginsburg, “and although the entire First Amendment area had clear indications of disturbance there was no sign of what we’re looking for. I guess we’ll start looking at the Declaration”. It's been thought that the right may have been moved to the Declaration of Independence, a document known to have friendly ties to the Constitution.

Over the years, skeptics of the original sighting have repeatedly claimed that Blackmun fabricated seeing the right in order to lure America into an illegal and immoral social policy. It has also been alleged that Blackmun’s discovery fell suspiciously on the heels of the pregnancy of his clerk, Maureen Lewinsky. Chief among the skeptics, self-proclaimed “anti-death mom” Sindy Cheehan has, for the past 7 years, camped out at the former Supreme Court Justice’s gravesite in protest. Cheehan claims that her decision to have an abortion in 1975 was based solely on the Blackmun statement. “I just want the world to know the truth about “Blackmunster” and that when “Blackmun Lied, Kids Died”, Cheehan said.

Over 45 million children have died from the procedure since Blackmun declared the successful beginning of abortion operations in 1973. In spite of the failed efforts to identify the whereabouts of the right to abortion NAAARAL President Muunbaht rejected the notion of those as being lost in vain, stating, “I find it offensive that there are those that claim that these deaths were wasted. Some day it’ll be found and all of our effort will be recognized as worthwhile.”

NAAARAL Article Funny But True

For those of you true conservatives who really know what is at issue here (FYI Mr. Driveby: the real issue has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with abortion) consider the colossal ignorance in the following statement found amongst the droppings left by one of drivebyposting's verbal evacuations:

"There are illegal abortions that happen every day in this country outside the law of Roe v. Wade."

How are true conservatives ever going to make progress with 9 out of 10 people (or worse) thinking nothing wrong with the statement "the law of Roe v. Wade"?

Mr. Drivebyposting is far from ashamed of his ignorance in using the phrase "the law of Roe v. Wade".

Quite to the contrary -- he thinks "the law of Roe v. Wade" is a hammer he can hold over our heads!

It gets worse.

Drivebyposting did not stop there but went on and on explaining the details of the Highest Court's abortion regulations. Driveby was proud to tell us how the court decided such-and-such could be done in the first trimester and second and third. And so forth.

Are you kidding!?

Imagine telling Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton that the States v. Federal debate took a horrible detour in Warren's Hippie Era Court down a dark back alley and emerged with the Supreme Court seizing the role of all three branches -- not to gerrymander jurisdictions or control commerce but to kill babies.

A mixed message...
Most of our national politicians lamented the Virginia Tech shooting - and rightly so. Yet when the Supreme Court upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion (which would more appropriately be called "murder during delivery"), many of these same politicians had a fit.

Talk about a mixed message!

LIFE AND HEALTHE OF THE MOTHER
Pro-abortionists use the phrases - "protect the health of the mother" and "protect the life of the mother" as their mantra.

I would suggest that pro-life anti-abortion forces across our country speak to every medical professional possible and ask the following two questions.

Give me every possible medical example of when an abortion may be necessary to PROTECT THE LIFE of a pregnant woman?

Give me every possible medical example of when an abortion may be necessary to PROTECT THE HEALTH of a pregnant woman?

I have heard several Doctors say they can't think of any!

Armed with these facts they could then be shoved down the throats of anyone that uses them.

It is extremely important that everyone understands the true facts.

A democratic evil majority yields What?
I need to reference 2 Supreme Court rulings and the King James Version of the Holy Bible.
Ruling#1:
In Peoples Vs. Ruggles (8 Johns 545,547) in 1811
the Supreme Court Stated that an Attack on Jesus
was an attack on the USA. The individual publishing and handing out fliers that was demeaning Jesus was sentenced to 3 months in Jail and given a $500 fine.
Ruling#2:
The Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S.;
143 U.S. 465,471 in 1892 the supreme Court Stated
after 10 years of research and providing 87 historical precedents that this was a Christian Nation.
Bible Quote#1: Isaiah 40:11
(This is referencing the Lord's behavior as the
Good Shepherd)
He shall feed His Flock like a shepherd: He shall gather the Lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.
----------------------------------------------
I submit to you that the Good Shepherd gently leads those that are pregnant. He promotes and protects life. Anyway that's what Jesus would do!
-----------------------------------------------
If we are a Christian Nation then why are we not doing what Jesus would do?
------------------------------------------------
If the majority of citizens in the U.S.A become
Thieves and Killers then what would a Democracy yield?
I think that we would lose our liberties.
Our Constitution and Government is for a Moral
Majority. If a Moral Majority fails to rule this
Country then our way of Government and Liberties would fail to be.
-------------------------------------------------
Anyway if God's people would get involved in our
Government then it would succeed if they were the
Ruling majority and they were truly following
II Chronicles 7:14. :
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Do we want a better economy at any cost?
Do we make Moral decisions that require self
sacrifice? Or do we vote for those making our lives more convenient? Not thinking of others but of ourselves?
Signed
Steve Malinowski



Spell out the Medical Criteria-Part Birt
As "cyborg" said above, spell out (in medical terms with medically meaningful standards and protocols) WHEN what we call "partial birth abortion" MUST be done...

Define the body signs of the mother which MANDATE a partial birth abortion instead of simply delivering the child..early

(note - here you must specify why the baby can't simply be delivered early---instead of turning it breech & collapsing the skill inside Mom)

Doctors have to justify their procedural life & death choices all the time. Let them set up the protocol with appropriate benchmarks...for their peers (and the rest of us) to judge!

(PS Unless, of course, we must turn the baby "breech" and collapse the skull inside Mom to avoid a post birth murder rap.)

I WISH THE MAJOR PRO LIFE ADVOCATES WOULD PUSH EVEN MORE FOR THE MEDICAL CRITERIA OF THOSE CLAIMING THIS IS DONE FOR THE MOM'S HEALTH/LIFE'S SAKE!!!

"Medical Procedures"?
I always laugh when I hear the pro-abortion advocates say that lawmakers are "trying to practice medicine by taking away medical procedures." Were the medical studies using Jews as guinea pigs during the holocaust legitimate "medical research?"

As a doctor who has helped second trimester premature infants in the neonatal intensive care unit, I can not believe that puncturing the brain of a second trimester fetus and sucking its brains out can be anything but murder.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.