Leaders of anti-abortion groups criticize Dobson

Rocky Mountain News ^ | May 23, 2007 | Associated Press

[Lesforlife]

Leaders of anti-abortion groups criticize Dobson

By Associated Press May 23, 2007

COLORADO SPRINGS — Leaders of four anti-abortion groups criticized Focus on the Family founder James Dobson today, saying he misrepresented a Supreme Court decision that upheld a ban on a controversial abortion technique.

In a full-page ad in The Gazette newspaper in Colorado Springs, the group said Dobson wrongly characterized the court’s April ruling as a victory for abortion foes. The ad said the ruling will actually encourage medical professionals to find "less shocking" methods than late-term abortions, which abortion opponents often call "partial-birth abortion."

[MEGoody]

The ad was paid for by private donations to raise awareness of the wicked Supreme Court ruling which the pro-life industry applauds.

Then they should have published an ad explaining what is wicked about the court ruling and leave Dobson out of it.

This comes off as a hit piece designed only to further the groups' own political visibility. Personally, I think it is about their jealousy of Dobson's success, not any real concern about babies.

[cornelis]

“the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, . . . has no basis in the Constitution.”

That may be a clue why Ginsburg is alarmed. If there is no basis in the Constitution, then court rulings are no longer jurisprudence but dependent on majority votes. And in that world, reasons don't count. Every single vote counts. This is why politicians on both sides--from McCain to Reid-- capitalized on the ruling. They are sensitive to the fickle tide of votes.

[Lesforlife]

Do you work for Focus?

[MHGinTN]

When the ruling occurred, I posted that it would not save any children, but that the mere fact a subpreme court ruling had finally upheld the legislature’s right to ban some killing methodology had to be a positive. Those attacking Dr. Dobson are exhibiting their zeal, and perhaps they want a complete ban on abortion ... but a complete ban is not possible so long as there are not ways to save the alive unborn in a pregnancy termination because a pregnant female American must have the right of self-defense, to end a pregnancy which endangers her life. Of course, to see the zealot’s side, how can the subpreme court give the right to kill another alive human being to a pregnant American? It is insane! On the other hand, if the entire set of issues were taken from the perspective of self-defense —for the pregnant American and the alive unborn-- then some sense might be possible in this horrid trend where a pregnant female is granted by fiat from nine black robed demigods a right to hire a serial killer to off an alive unborn child!

[cornelis]

it would not save any children

Sure it can.

[NeoCaveman]

Bizarre.

Bizarre indeed. With allies like these, who needs NARAL?

[MHGinTN]

Sure it can, but it won't likely stop a serial killer with a paying client because there are ways for the serial killer to 'legally' get around the law. Now, if the ruling is the start of a sanity trend, well, then it could be a saving ruling, in the long run.

Let me illustrate why it will not stop a serial killer from doing the deed of offing the alive unborn. When a partial bireth abortion is scheduled, a cervical laminary is placed, to dilate the cervix for the planned procedure. One, two, or three days later, the kill is made, if the child does not spontaneously exit the uterus before the serial killer gets his or her hands on the alive little one while holding scissors and cannula. The way the law is written, this same serial killer can legally add one step to the placing of the laminary, injecting potassium chloride to the heart of the littel one, then deliver a dead child two or three days later. Or infuse a massive amount of saline into the amniotic fluid, to scald the little one to death while the cervix is being dilated. The serial killer isn't prohibited from killing the little one, just prohibited from killing the helpless child in that particular method explained in the bill.

[N3WBI3]

No, Banning murder by a shooting the person in a specific place (heart) is no good when the law itself says 'but if you put one between the eyes its all good'.

The PBA Ban was only a victory for politicians who play for abortion votes (on both sides of the issue). I seriously doubt it has saved even one life..

[cornelis]

As I said to murron earlier, there ain’t no law to prevent you from committing infanticide or for that matter any -cide: just go ahead and do it, nothing to stop you. Bravo! But you can't get away with it. This is the situation for homicide in general. Homicide is not necessarily criminal. It is certain circumstances, procedures, conditions that make it criminal. Infanticide is a form of homicide: circumstances, procedures, or conditions must be stipulated to make the act criminal.

Another feature of this ruling is that it recognizes in part a state's privilege

[MEGoody]

Nope.

[Lesforlife]

Precisely what the ruling states!

[MHGinTN]

When some means is instituted to remove the dehumanization of the alive unborn little ones, THEN there will be a way to stop the serial killing and trun the nation around to value life at its most nascent age.

[Rensslaer]

I does not stop infanticide sir. It can be done by another 11-12 techniques.The justices allow for the baby to slip out almost all the way (as long as the trustworthy abortionist did not intend for the baby to come out to the neck) and they can still do a textbook PBA procedure. Or, you can deliver baby to the navel and hack him off there. How does that stop infanticide? As a healthcare professional, it still qualifies as infanticide.

[Rensslaer]

Is Dobson above questioning? Isn’t he in a leadership position that holds a lot of power and responsibility? The only one I know of that cannot be questioned or rebuked is Jesus Christ. Please be more substantive in your critique of the letter, not just emoting. If we have said something inaccurate, false or dishonest then please point it out.

[Rensslaer]

Actually we are all volunteers and the people opposing this letter are part of the pro-life industry.

[PAR35]

Actually we are all volunteers

I'd consider it more of a career than a hobby for Benham; I remember hearing of him 20 or so years ago. I don't recognize the names of the others, but if you represent that the Bible Church preacher is volunteering on his own time rather than useing paid time for this, I'll take your word for it.

[cornelis]

There isn’t a law to stop you from doing anything you can do.