Posted on 04/24/2007 5:17:38 PM PDT by neverdem
I support the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade (1973). The Supreme Court found a constitutional right empowering women, in consultation with their physicians, to abort the fetus they were carrying if they so desired. Until the most recent case of Gonzales v. Carhart decided last week, Roe v. Wade was basically upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in abortion cases.
Last week, the court took the opposite view. The 5 to 4 decision for the first time limited in a major way the right of a woman to have a particular type of abortion, known by opponents of abortion as partial-birth abortion and by supporters of the right to an abortion as intact dilation and extraction. The procedure entails delivery of the fetus by bringing it to near birth through the birth canal, allowing its body to descend to a point where the fetus is expelled from its mother's body up to the head. At that point, the head is lacerated, the brain removed and the skull cracked so as to permit the head to be expelled from the mother's body.
The procedure is so gruesome that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan described it as "close to infanticide." There is no humane being, I believe, who isn't appalled by the procedure. However, those supporting its use argue that the alternative procedure which now will be used instead is equally gruesome and involves killing the fetus and then dismembering and extracting it from the mother's body limb by limb. Defenders of partial-birth abortion say this procedure may involve greater danger to the health of the mother than partial-birth abortion.
My own view of abortion is that in a rational world, which doesn't exist, abortion would be limited to the...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
“I support the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade (1973).”
Already Koch demonstrates that he supports judicial activism without any Constitutional basis.
“The Supreme Court found a constitutional right empowering women, in consultation with their physicians, to abort the fetus they were carrying if they so desired.”
By this same logic, they could find a constitutional right empowering fathers, in consultation with their financial advisors, to abandon their children in the desert if they couldn’t afford them.
“The procedure is so gruesome that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan described it as “close to infanticide.”
Close to infanticide? Close to infanticide? Don’t you love it when liberals try to act like they care, but can’t quite pull it off.
“Interestingly, the two newest Supreme Court justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, during their Senate confirmation process stated in Congressional hearings their solemn support for the doctrine of stare decisis, a belief in precedent with earlier U.S. Supreme Court case outcomes governing their decisions.”
But aren’t you glad they tempered their respect for stare decisis on such cases as Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson? Don’t you really mean, Mr. Koch, that you want stare decisis consideration on cases that *you* care about?
“The next presidential election in 2008 will revolve around two major issues, the war in Iraq and the operating table.”
Funny how he can’t even be honest about the central issue, namely protecting human life. If abortion is merely an issue of what happens at the operating table, is rape merely an issue of sexual choice?
“The Democratic Party would be best served if it did not make restoration of partial-birth abortion its goal, but urged the drawing of a line against further deterioration of the rights now accorded women seeking an abortion.”
Oh Ed, you *don’t* know the Democrats very well do you?
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.