Senator Clinton, along with many of her other pro-abortionist colleagues, has always asserted that bills to outlaw partial-birth abortion were too vague and would not sufficiently protect the life of the mother. Even Justice Sandra Day O'Connor seemed to base her majority opinion declaring the Nebraska partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutional on concerns for the mother's health.
While it seems that most experts have said that health of the mother is rarely a concern in these procedures, the Senate went to painstaking lengths to craft this legislation to clarify that the procedure would not be unlawful if performed to protect the mother's health.
Yet Senator Clinton and her colleagues still vehemently opposed the bill and even called it extreme. But how extreme is a measure that 65 to 75 percent of the American public support?
Such statistics haven't moved the New York senator, et al, who insist that the bill might criminalize a "medically necessary" procedure -- even though the medically necessary hypothetical to which she refers has to do with protecting the mother's health, which is specifically covered by the bill.
Senator Clinton knows there is no "slippery slope" in this bill that would result in the criminalization of other abortions. Even its proponents concede it was tailor made to cover only the partial-birth procedure. But so extreme are Mrs. Clinton and her fellow travelers that their objections to the bill cannot be satisfied, because the sacrament of abortion is not to be abridged.
That, my folks, is extremism to an extreme degree. But if the left wants to insist on characterizing George Bush and pro-life advocates as extreme for persisting in the struggle to protect the lives of the unborn, I (and I'm sure most like-minded pro-lifers) will readily and enthusiastically plead guilty.