Posted on 10/09/2004 1:53:32 PM PDT by My Favorite Headache
John Kerry did something last night that has opened this election up into a new realm that has been largely ignored.
His stance on Partial Birth Abortion.
Pope John Kerry tried to spin his views on the question on whether or not as President if he would use ANY tax dollars to fund anything to do with Abortion. This was clearly a Kerry/Deer In The Headlights moment if there ever was one.
Kerry tried to come off like he was a responsible Catholic. One who understood and respected the woman's emotions on the matter. A Divorced Catholic who has nothing but a history in the U.S. Senate of voting for pro-Abortion spending and laws. A "former altar boy" if you will who was now ringing the bells at the bottom of the altar like it was Sunday mass and the voters were Jesus Christ himself.
John Kerry tried to spin the issue and make it an issue about parental notification and a father raping his 15 yr old daughter. Which of course has NOTHING to do with the practice of Partial Birth Abortions. Something in which John Kerry himself voted against banning.
Scaring people on the campaign trail and in mixed messages to teens and college students nationwide that President Bush is in favor of taking away a woman's right to choose by passing this bill and harming the life of a mother who would die without a partial birth abortion.
Let's have a look at the facts:
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 760, S. 3) would ban performance of a partial-birth abortion except if it were necessary to the save a mother's life. The bill defines partial-birth abortion as an abortion in which “the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother,” and then kills the baby. The bill would permit use of the procedure if “necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.”
• In a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a living baby feet-first out of the womb and into the birth canal (vagina), except for the head, which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside the cervix (the opening to the womb). The abortionist punctures the base of the baby’s skull with a surgical instrument, such as a long surgical scissors or a pointed hollow metal tube called a trochar. He then inserts a catheter (tube) into the wound, and removes the baby's brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the skull to collapse, after which the abortionist completes the delivery of the now-dead baby. (See www.house.gov/burton/RSC/haskellinstructional.pdf)
Since its 1973 ruling that legalized abortion, the Supreme Court has opened the door to greater state restrictions on when women may obtain abortions. States have responded with requirements for parental consent or notification in cases involving minors, state-directed counseling, mandatory waiting periods and, most recently, bans on a procedure referred to by its critics as "partial-birth" abortion. In some states, the restrictions are not in effect while they are being challenged in court.
A state-by-state look at these restrictions:
Alabama: parental consent; limited "partial-birth" abortion ban.
Alaska: parental consent (pending court case); counseling; "partial-birth" abortion ban (pending court case).
Arizona: parental consent (pending court case); "partial-birth" abortion ban (pending court case).
Arkansas: parental notification; "partial-birth" abortion ban (pending court case).
California: parental consent (pending court case); counseling.
Colorado: parental consent (pending court case).
Connecticut: counseling.
Delaware: parental notification; waiting period (pending court case).
District of Columbia: none.
Florida: counseling (pending court case).
Georgia: parental notification; limited "partial-birth" abortion ban.
Hawaii: none.
Idaho: parental notification; waiting period.
Illinois: parental notification (pending court case); "partial-birth" abortion ban.
Indiana: parental consent; waiting period; "partial-birth" abortion ban.
Iowa: parental notification.
Kansas: parental notification; waiting period; counseling for minors.
Kentucky: parental consent; waiting period (pending court case).
Louisiana: parental consent; waiting period; "partial-birth" abortion ban (pending court case).
Maine: parental consent or counseling.
Maryland: parental notification.
Massachusetts: parental consent; waiting period (pending court case).
Michigan: parental consent; waiting period (pending court case); "partial-birth"abortion ban (pending court case).
Minnesota: parental notification.
Mississippi: parental consent; waiting period; "partial-birth" abortion ban.
Missouri: parental consent; counseling (pending court case).
Montana: parental notification (pending court case); waiting period; (pending court case); "partial-birth" abortion ban (pending court case).
Nebraska: parental notification; waiting period; limited "partial-birth" abortion ban.
Nevada: parental notification; counseling.
New Hampshire: none.
New Jersey: "partial-birth" abortion ban (pending court case).
New Mexico: parental consent (pending court case).
New York: none.
North Carolina: parental consent.
North Dakota: parental consent; waiting period.
Ohio: parental notification; waiting period; "partial-birth" abortion ban (pending court case).
Oklahoma: none.
Oregon: none.
Pennsylvania: parental consent; waiting period.
Rhode Island: parental consent; counseling; "partial-birth" abortion ban (pending court case).
South Carolina: parental consent; waiting period; "partial-birth" abortion ban.
South Dakota: parental notification; waiting period; "partial-birth" abortion ban.
Tennessee: parental consent (pending court case); waiting period (pending court case); "partial-birth" abortion ban.
Texas: none.
Utah: parental notification; waiting period; "partial-birth" abortion ban.
Vermont: none.
Virginia: parental notification; counseling. Washington: none.
West Virginia: parental notification.
Wisconsin: parental consent; waiting period (pending court case).
Wyoming: parental consent.
By The Associated Press
These are the current states and their stances on partial birth abortions.
John Kerry needs to realize that he lost a great deal last night with his opinion's on Stem Cell and Partial Birth Abortions. It is more powerful in many of the homes and churches in this country than the war in Iraq.
Since he seems to have underestimated this very fact with his cockiness and Hollywood stars backing him up, he has been sorely advised and mistaken.
Any human being in the United States who votes for John Kerry is indeed in favor of Partial Birth Abortion. Yes,sounds very familiar doesn't it? You want to harbour terrorists? Then you shall be treated just like them. You want to support a man who voted AGAINST one of the most VILE and MURDEROUS acts upon a child? Including the Laci Peterson law? You are just as bad and should revoke any and all associations with the belief's of Jesus Christ.
Because at the end of the day you just can't spin this one, sorry..Jesus Christ himself would not find an exception to this one. No matter how hard you try. Partial Birth Abortion is the worst procedure known to innocent life.
This isn't a Right wing issue. A right to life issue. A Republican issue. This is a MORAL issue. Period.
Lesson: You have absolutely NO MORALS if you vote for John Kerry on November 2nd.
We have had enough of the "I feel your pain" crap that Clinton gave us for almost a decade and we all know what a SHAM that was. There is no way Kerry is even close to being as convincing as Clinton was as a public speaker and debater.
This dog will not hunt.
PING
Sorry to say this, but JPII has been rather spineless in dealing with pro-abort Catholics regarding his failure to enforce Church teachings on LIFE issues and SCANDAL. We need a new, energetic Pope who will not only teach the right things as JPII has done, but will put some teeth into the teachings by enforcing existing teachings and Canon Law.
As a Catholic myself...I have to say the entire Vatican has been a disgrace the last 15 yrs.
Summary: Kerry is pro abortion but opposed to capital punishment for the guy who murdered your daughter. He's for the war but against the war...............Really wonder if the gigolo needs a shrink.
Excuse my ignorance - at what month is it considered it a "partial birth" abortion ?
To listen to members of congress and the senate defend this barbaric practice is the most sickening thing I have ever witnessed in my life. I despise the likes of kerry, edwards, fineswine and the others who actually make a stand and say this should be legal.
I should not say this but I hope they burn in hell for eternity.
The term “partial-birth” is perfectly accurate. Under both federal law and most state laws, a “live birth” occurs when a baby is entirely expelled from the mother and shows any signs of life, however briefly -- regardless of whether the baby is “viable,” i.e., developed enough to be sustained outside the womb with neo-natal medical assistance. Even at 4½ months (20 weeks), perinatologists say that if a baby is expelled or removed completely from the uterus, she will usually gasp for breath and sometimes survive for hours, even though lung development is usually insufficient to permit successful sustained respiration until 23 weeks.
“Phony ban” counterproposals advanced by Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.) would place no limits on partial-birth abortions in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, when the vast majority of partial-birth abortions occur. Furthermore, these “phony bans” would allow an abortion even in the seventh month and later if an abortionist asserts that a baby is not “viable” or that an abortion is required to preserve “health.” Reps. Hoyer and Greenwood admitted that their proposal would allow third-trimester abortions even for (in their words) “mental health” reasons. (www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/Phony%20ban%20on%20late-term.pdf)
• Another “phony ban” substitute amendment proposed in the past by Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Richard Durbin (D-Il.) would not affect the typical partial-birth abortions performed in the late second trimester. Even in the seventh month and later, the substitute would permit abortions based on any degree of “risk” of “grievous injury to her physical health.” Dr. Warren Hern, a leading practitioner of very late abortions who wrote the textbook Abortion Practice, commented on the Daschle amendment, “I say every pregnancy carries a risk of death,” and therefore, “I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman’s life and could cause ‘grievous injury’ to her ‘physical health.’” (in USA Today and Washington Times, both May 15, 1997) In other words, under the Daschle-Durbin amendment, any pregnant woman would qualify for an abortion even in the seventh month and later.
p.s. In the state listings of abortion laws which you posted, do you know if the states “banning” partial-birth abortions have a “health of the mother” exception?
• Although usually used in the fifth and sixth months, the partial-birth abortion method is also used to perform abortions in the third trimester -- that is, the seventh month and later. In Kansas, the only state in which the law requires separate reporting of partial-birth abortions, abortionists reported in 1999 they had performed 182 partial-birth abortions on babies who were defined by the abortionists themselves as “viable,” and they also reported that all 182 of these were performed for “mental” (as opposed to “physical”) health reasons. See page 11 of this state report: www.kdhe.state.ks.us/hci/99itop1.pdf
Kerry danced like Bojangles on that one...along with his tort reform non-answer.
Not sure, but here's a description: the doctor grabs the feet of the baby and pulls the baby out as far as he can. Then the doctor uses a sharp instrument to puncture the soft skull, sucks out the baby's brains, reducing size of skull so it can be more easily pulled out of the uterus. So the baby is fairly well developed.
The problem with the pope is not only is he too old to lead...but he is entirely wayyyyyyyyy too globalist...like a spokesman for the UN.
I believe we have to make a case out of his case to be honest. Swing vote or no swing vote. This to me was the pinnacle of Bush's win last night.
The Situation in the United States (federal) Circuit Courts of Appeals.
How these statutes have fared in the U.S. District Courts (i.e., the federal trial courts) is one thing, but now the appeals from those cases are starting to reach the federal appellate courts. The U.S. Courts of Appeals (divided into 13 geographic circuits) are the midway point between the trial level and the U.S. Supreme Court.
The United States Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit held that Ohio's ban on partial-birth abortions unconstitutional in Women's Medical Professional Corp. v. Voinovich, 130 F.3d 187 (6th Cir. 1997) and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal. This is the first time a federal appeals court reviewed the constitutionality of this type of statute. (It may be significant that the Ohio statute is not only the first of its kind, but also that it uses language very different from and much vaguer than its successors, which tend to be patterned after the federal bills.)
The fourth circuit issued a stay preventing the district courts in that circuit from enjoining enforcement of Virginia's statute in Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Gilmore, 144 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 1998), and the motion to vacate stay was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 18547. (This was not a judgment as to the ultimate constitutionality of the statute, but may indicate that the panel doubted the likelihood of it being later found unconstitutional.)
Recently, three states' partial-birth-abortion laws were held unconstitutional by a single panel of the eighth circuit, after it concluded, in part, that all three statutes effectively forbade the common D&E (“dilation & evacuation”) procedure: Carhart v. Stenberg, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 23162 (8th Cir. Sept. 24, 1999) (Nebraska); Little Rock Family Planning Services, P.A. v. Jegley, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 23165 (8th Cir. Sept. 24, 1999) (Arkansas); and Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, Inc. v. Miller, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 23166 (8th Cir. Sept. 24, 1999) (Iowa). [NOTE: These three opinions are in ".pdf" format. If you do not already have it, you may download Adobe Acrobat .pdf reader for free.]
In October of 1999, the Unite States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in a 5 to 4 decision, upheld the constitutionality of the Illinois and Wisconsin statutes. The Hope Clinic, et al. v. James E. Ryan, Attorney General of Illinois, et al., No. 98-1726 (7th Cir., October 26, 1999) This is the third time a circuit has fully addressed the issue and it is first time such a court found this type of statute constitutional.
Part III of Judge Easterbrook's opinion for the Court reads, in part:
"It is always difficult for a court of appeals to predict how Justices of the Supreme Court will apply a phrase with as much plasticity as "undue burden." But our best estimate is that "undue" rather than "burden" is the key word, and that "undue" means not only "substantial" (a small cost or inconvenience is not "undue") but also that the burden must be undue in relation to the woman's interests, rather than undue in relation to the court's assessment of society's interests. Plaintiffs' (implicit) argument that every regulation of a medical procedure is "undue" fails because many regulations create small burdens. The physician-only rule was one; a prohibition of D&X is another. Even for the class of women who seek late-second-trimester abortions, there is always one or more other safe methods of abortion in addition to D&X. Let us return to the natural experiment now under way. Plaintiffs do not contend that in any of the states where a partial-birth-abortion law is in effect, even one woman has been injured or denied an abortion because of the law.
Judge Posner's opinion for the dissent reads, in part:
“[T]he statutes do not forbid the destruction of any class of fetuses, but merely criminalize a method of abortion--they thus have less to recommend them than the antiabortion statutes invalidated in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). If any fetal lives are saved by these statutes, it will only be by scaring physicians away from performing any late-term abortions, an effect particularly likely in Wisconsin, whose statute imposes a punishment of life imprisonment for its violation.
. . . .
But as banning "partial birth" abortions is not intended to improve the health of women (or anyone, for that matter), it cannot be defended as a health regulation.
. . . .
[O]ne thing clear: it is extremely difficult, indeed probably impossible, to distinguish a "partial birth" abortion from the methods of abortion that are conceded to be privileged.
. . . .
How often the circumstances [that make D&X a desirable method] will be present is not critical. It is slight consolation to be told that while the state has forbidden the optimal treatment of your medical problem, that problem happily is rare.”
The fact that various federal circuits (6th & 8th versus the 7th) have now developed contrary opinions on this issue makes it much more likely the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the issue. It could do so sometime next year as the petitions from the 7th and 8th circuits come before the Court. (It is possible that the cases may be consolidated if the Court agrees to take either of them.)
This December, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens (who is the "Circuit Justice" for the 7th circuit) issued a temporary injunction against the enforcement of the Wisconsin and Illinois statutes that were upheld by the 7th Circuit in the The Hope Clinic case. This injunction will block enforcement of the statutes until the Supreme Court decides whether or not to hear the appeal. (The 7th Circuit had recently declined to issue such an injunction.) This was another indication that the Court was willing to hear the issue soon. See this News Article.
Stenberg v. Carhart--the issue goes to the U.S. Supreme Court
On Friday, the 14th of January, 2000, the United States Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari on the petition by Nebraska Attorney General, Don Stenberg, to review 8th Circuit's decision in Carhart v. Stenberg. In other words, the Supreme Court has decided to hear its first partial-birth abortion case. This will be its first major abortion decision since 1992. The Court will review the 8th Circuit's decision in Carhart v. Stenberg, supra, which was handed down in September of 1999. In that case, a panel of the 8th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals held Nebraska's Partial Birth abortion law unconstitutional. The case has docketed under the name Don Stenberg, Attorney General of Nebraska, et al., Petitioners v. Leroy Carhart and Docket number (No. 99-830). The case is scheduled for oral argument on Teusday, 25 April 2000. See this News Article.
Briefs are now becoming available at www.findlaw.com. Petitioner's Brief [PDF version]
The Nebraska Statute:
The statute in controversy is generally similar to to most of the 30 statutes adopted by various states, therefore it is arguably an appropriate choice for the Court to test. Section 28-326 (9) defines "Partial-birth abortion" and § 28-328 (1) criminalizes the performance of it unless it is "necessary to save the life of the mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder."
§ 28-326.
. . . .
(9) Partial-birth abortion means an abortion procedure in which the person performing the abortion partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child before killing the unborn child and completing the delivery. For purposes of this subdivision, the term partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child before killing the unborn child means deliberately and intentionally delivering into the vagina a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing a procedure that the person performing such procedure knows will kill the unborn child and does kill the unborn child.
§ 28-328. Partial-birth abortion; prohibition; violation; penalties. (1) No partial-birth abortion shall be performed in this state, unless such procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
(2) The intentional and knowing performance of an unlawful partial-birth abortion in violation of subsection (1) of this section is a Class III felony.
(3) No woman upon whom an unlawful partial-birth abortion is performed shall be prosecuted under this section or for conspiracy to violate this section.
This banner was supplied by SAFE Audit
These are some citations for the various state statutes:
Alabama, 1997 Alabama Laws Act 97-485 (S.B. 314)
Alaska, AK Statutes § 18.16.050,
Arizona, Criminal Code § 13-3603.01,
Arkansas, AR Code Annotated § 5-61-203
Florida, FS § 390.001
Georgia, GC 16-12-144
Illinois, IL Statutes Chapt. 720, § 513
Indiana, IC 16-34-2-1
Kansas 65-6721
Louisiana, LA R.S. 14:32.9
Michigan, MCL 333.17016 & MCL 33.17516
Missouri ST 565.300
Mississippi, Miss. Code 1972, § 41-41-73
Montana, MC § 50-20-109,
Nebraska, NE ST § 28-326, 328
New Jersey, NJ Statutes Title 2A, Chapt. 65A
Ohio, Ohio Revised Code § 2919.15
Rhode Island, RI Statutes § 23-4.12
South Carolina, SC Code 1976 § 44-41-85
South Dakota, SDCL 34-23A-27
Tennessee, TC § 39-15-209
Utah, UC 1953 § 76-7-310.5
Virginia, VC § 18.2-74.2
[Findlaw.com is a great source for statutory texts, though not always perfectly current.]
More bills are pending in other states. The Federal Bill, "The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act," which, while it has become the model for most of the state laws, has been repeatedly vetoed and attempted overrides have consistently failed in the Senate. Below are some texts selected to provide a cross-section of the different statutes. The Michigan and Federal bills represent the typical of language used by most of the statutes. Ohio, Louisiana and Utah are the more unusual statutes, employing language significantly different from their piers. Missouri's § 565.300 represents a significant departure from the previous legislation in this area. It creates a crime called "infanticide" defined as "caus[ing] the death of a living infant with the purpose to cause said death by an overt act performed when the infant is partially born or born." [See below.]
Ohio: ORC 2919.15 Enjoined by Women's Medical
Utah: § 76-7-310.5
Louisiana: § 32.9
Michigan: HB 5889
Statute enjoined by Evans v. Kelly, 977 F.Supp. 1283 (E.D. Mich. 1997).
Missouri: § 565.300
Proposed Federal:
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995 (HR 1833)
The failed 1997 version is different in certain ways.
The 1999 bill has passed both houses of Congress. A veto is expected.
Full Text of Judiciary Report on HR 1833
A Senate RPC policy paper concisely details the history and purpose of this bill from the drafters' perspective.
A memo by Lawrence Tribe reflects the concerns of the bills opponents.
An article in the Bergen Record criticizes the approach of both sides.
See this article in Catholic Online by Jill Stanek for some real life examples.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/jillstanektestimony.htm
Laws to ban this uniquely controversial late-term abortion procedure have been passed in at least twenty-three states:
Alabama - Alabama, 1997 Alabama Laws Act 97-485 (S.B. 314)
Alaska - Alaska, AK Statutes § 18.16.050
Arizona - Arizona, Criminal Code § 13-3603.01
Arkansas - Arkansas, AR Code Annotated § 5-61-203
Florida - Florida, FS § 390.001
Georgia - Georgia, GC 16-12-144
Illinois - Illinois, IL Statutes Chapt. 720, § 513
Indiana - Indiana, IC 16-34-2-1
Kansas - Unknown
Louisiana - Louisiana, LA R.S. 14:32.9
Michigan - Michigan, MCL 333.17016 & MCL 33.17516A
Mississippi - Mississippi, Miss. Code 1972, § 41-41-73
Montana - Montana, MC § 50-20-109
Nebraska - Nebraska, NE ST § 28-326
New Jersey - New Jersey, NJ Statutes Title 2A, Chapt. 65A
Ohio - Ohio, Ohio Revised Code § 2919.15A
Oklahoma - Unknown
Rhode Island - Rhode Island, RI Statutes § 23-4.12
South Carolina - South Carolina, SC Code 1976 § 44-41-85
South Dakota - South Dakota, SDCL 34-23A-27
Tennessee - Tennessee, TC § 39-15-209
Utah - Utah, UC 1953 § 76-7-310.5
Virginia - Virginia, VC § 18.2-74.2
All of these statues have the maternal "life " exception for when the mothers life is in danger. The majority of these do not include the maternal "health" exception which means that the procedure can not be performed if there might be health complications. Massachusetts and Indiana laws ban state funding of partial birth abortions. Most of these laws are based on the 1996 federal bill which failed to make it into law.
These laws are currently being challenged by pro-abortion supporters. This has caused most laws to remain inactive until the decision by the supreme court as per orders of appeals courts. This is not true of Virginia and Wisconsin.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heathers_Place.htm
Now, which label more accurately describes this horrific act, partial-birth abortion or Intact D&X? Which side is misleading in its description?
p.s. Under the teaching of the RCC, John Kerry is going to hell. The bishops who are standing by and permitting Kerry to damn his soul are also, under the teaching of the RCC, going to hell. These aren’t my opinions; these are the teachings of the RCC.
Yes. Doe v. Bolton assured a huge loophole. Even social health exceptions are mandated. Until the courts are changed, no legislation can stand.
No one should burn in hell. It would be better to pray that they are born again and turn their life around like George Bush .
Unbearably sad.
Just to make a correction. The answer you are talking about from last night's debate went to a different question about abortion. His answer to his vote against the partial birth abortion bill was that it did not contain language about the mother's health or life being in danger. That's the way I remember it (I taped it, so I can look it up again, if you think I got that backwards...but I think that's correct).
ping
Bush corrected it for Kerry and Kerry had nothing left in the tank. Bush said "He voted against the ban on PBA...period"
John Kerry said that the partial birth abortion ban vote was the result of no provision for the life of the mother.
Would someone please tell me how pausing the birthing process long enough to kill the fetus enhances the chance of the woman's survival? I honestly do not understand.
The only thing I can come up with is that in order to save the life of a woman, a doctor induces labor. The fetus may or may not live. If the fetus does survive, it would be at a much greater risk of severe problems than a full term baby. The doctor, then, kills the baby in an attempt to forestall any malpractice lawsuit over a condition that may have occurred due to the fetus' premature birth, which was directly caused by the doctor.
What am I missing here? This is ludicrous!
http://www.cpforlife.org/id122.htm
Very graphic photos including some poor babies who came out feet first after their brains were suctioned out. PBA is performed after the 6th month when the suction device used for earlier term abortions won't do the job.
Some so called docs were actually caught and reported for delivering live babies (while mothers were sedated) so they could have "fresher" organs to sell.Yes in America.
Texas Headache cited H. R. 760 as follows:
The bill would permit use of the procedure if “necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.”
Sounds like an exception for the "health and life endangerment" to me.
THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH THE SKULLS OF BISHOPS
St. John Chrysostom
…
Kerry, also, however, stated that he voted against the ban because it did not include a “HEALTH” of the mother exception, an exception which, under Doe v. Bolton, serves to “ban” no abortion whatsoever.
No, the Texas statute would be declared unconstitutional as it lacks a "health" of the mother exception.
Truly sad. So many of our bishops have failed us so terribly. The good thing is, however, that their scandalous behavior has placed them in good standing with Democratic leaders and our bishops thus still receive invitations to the best social events in their cities.
WP
Does my point not still stand with a "health" exception? Pausing the birth long enough to extract the brains from the fetus can't be a good thing for your health? Why can't they induce labor and if the baby dies, it's tragic, but the mother's life is spared. How does killing the baby make anything easier on the mother? - with the exception that she won't have to take care of the infant?
I don't see any point into getting into the Catholic debate. So I'll just say what I said yesterday. Karl Rove, the media, and most of the intellectuals have a very distorted view of how most Americans today view abortion.
People in the media think that being pro-abortion is politically smart, because everyone they know is pro-abort. But a substantial majority of voters in most states are uncomfortable with abortion. Bush's obviously sincere words will resonate with these people, and kerry's will turn them off.
The 2002 election showed, once again, that pro-life candidates do very well. ALL the candidates supported by NARAL and Emily's List were defeated.
I wish Rove understood that and would stop alienating the pro-life vote, because Bush himself is pretty solid on this issue.
You are correct nonetheless I saw the diagrams of what happens to the poor baby who is crying and little arms and legs are wiggling. Then I witnessed men and women who are in positions of power and authority argue that this is something that should be done. I will have to let God show them mercy. I am a sinner who cannot forgive them and I must state my belief that they are bound for hell for what they have done.
It isnt about the life of the mother. Its about abortion and the fact that if they say PBA should be outlawed then the door is open for all abortion to be outlawed and the evil workers for satan cannot allow that. They would rather dam their souls to hell for eternity then say a fetus is Gods creature and has a right to life.
I was referring to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 760, S. 3)
Well... for us that are not catholics, I would say that the Church and its position are irrelevant!
Exactly what kind of situation could POSSIBLY present itself under the wording of the partial-birth abortion murder ban to be medically necessary to kill a baby at that stage of gestation?
Even further - what exactly makes a mother's life at that point so much more valuable than her unborn BABY that it justifies MURDERING that innocent baby?
I can see how abortionists baby murderers can deceive women into thinking that "it's" not a human - after all, for the first month the baby doesn't look much like a baby (even though it very much is), but how can people knowingly kill a baby that in the case of some partial-birth abortions, would have a decent chance of surviving if born at that time?
How about - if the courts strike down partial-birth abortion bans - then require every single procedure to be filmed in clear high-definition digital format, with the baby being "Partially delivered" FACE FIRST, and then require the "Mother" to watch the procedure. Then require the same footage to be shown to those seeking the same procedure. After all - according to Senator Edwards, the unborn experience pain. Then lets video tape that pain (I'm sure it would show clearly when their brains are sucked out, just prior to the skull collapsing).
My apologies for being so graphic - as you can tell, I truly get emotional about this subject.
I don't understand how anyone could support PBA. It is the worst evil our country has ever committed--yes, IMHO, even worse than slavery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.