Posted on 07/07/2010 10:25:52 AM PDT by NYer
Well damn, one can only wish Bin Laden or some other terrorists would target every ACLU office.....=.=
Abortion is anything but life saving! Thought you might be interested in this.
Why are these bastards so damn worried about getting abortions completed yet don’t want to help Arizona with all of the human trash entering the country illegally?
Yeah, nothing like brutally murdering a baby to save a life.
You know the Ohaha's are behind this atrocity.
THE COCKEYED WORLD OF THE PRO-ABORTION NUT JOBS
Obama is the most radically pro-abortion President in US history. Outrageously, he was invited to speak at Notre Dame. Despite his flowery words, all of his actions serve to radically increase abortions in America, and around the world.
CASE IN POINT A federal probe into whether the Obama Administration broke federal laws by promoting a proposed constitution that radically changes abortion policy in Kenya was requested by three high ranking lawmakers with congressional oversight responsibilities.
CASE IN POINT Obama DOJ nominee Dawn Johnsen saw a great danger to liberty in laws enacted to protect babies in the womb...... it was OK to make such laws to protect the interests of the woman carrying unborn child -- or to protect whatever interest the baby may have retroactively in its fetal existence if it is ever born alive -- but it was not OK to make such laws in the interest of the unborn child itself.
============================================
What Obama and Michelle "Believe" re Aborted Babies Born Alive
FR POSTED http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2253212/posts?page=6
In February 2004, US Senate candidate Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, sent a fund-raising letter with the "alarming news" that "right-wing politicians" had passed a law (prohibiting doctors from stabbing half-born babies in the neck with scissors, suctioning out their brains and crushing their skulls).
Michelle Obama called partial-birth abortion "a legitimate medical procedure. " She urged supporters to pay $150 to attend a fund-raising luncheon for her husband, who she promised would fight against "cynical ploy[s]" to stop it.
BACKGROUND Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted. BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery. The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.
But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. Obama worried aloud that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights.
In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.
BAIPA passed in 2005.........after Obama left.
uhm Abortion is proxy to infanticide; ACLU forcing facilities and individuals to submit to abortion activities.
Now the ACLU is the determiner of the most appropriate medical treatment, as long as its abortion.
Every abortion ends a life.
It’s almost never the case that the mother’s life will be saved by an abortion. Some physicians actually say that situation doesn’t exist at all.
If, on the other hand, you want a gun to protect yourself, they'll go to court on behalf of your oppressors so you don't have a chance.
We'd all be better off without this bunch.
Ectopic pregnancy is really the only case. Somehow I doubt this is the case here.
That’s a very obvious and reasoned example. Nice. I should have thought of that myself.
Thanks for the correction.
I will say that I was focusing on “Late Term” in my mind, and that’s why I wasn’t so inclined to remember your example. Still, there’s no excuse for me not remembering such a clear cut case of threat to the mother.
In that instance, I am very much in support of saving the mother. I don’t believe the child could come to term anyway.
With current technology no, but perhaps someday.
Perhaps so. That would be great. I sure don’t see any easy resolution to the problem though.
But in this case, as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, there is no abortion procedure per se with the intention of killing the baby. In the case of ectopic pregnancy, it's the diseased fallopian tube (containing the preterm baby) that's removed; in the hysterectomy, it's the diseased uterus (containing the preterm baby) that's removed.
In both of these cases, the baby is not the target: the diseased organ is. The baby's demise may be foreseeable, but unavoidable and unintended.
This is important because it is never right to directly target a baby (or any innocent person) for intentional destruction.
It is sometimes OK to induce labor prematurely to save the mother's life. Some such cases may truly be in a "gray area" (because premature labor does not intend the baby's death, but at the same time they may know the preemie's chances of survival will be very low). But evidently ---as I now understand it ---the Arizona case was not just a premature delivery, it was a direct abortion.
Which is exactly what the ACLU is arguing in favor of, even if it overrides the whole SAanctity of Life ethic that motivated the founding of all these hundreds of Catholic hospitals to begin with.
The ACLU is so repellent, and its actions so abhorrent, it's almost beyond words.
Thank you for the comments. I agree with them.
The A. C. L. U. is a despicable organization.
The same First Amendment that the ACLU will support when they argue for the right to publish porn, but will fight when they argue against the free exercise of religion. Much like they twist the phrase "separation of church and state." They want church and state to be separate when it means the church stays out of the public square, but not when it means that the state stays out of church-related matters.
Let's just say it's not a lot of disgruntled Catholics named Leary and O'Toole who support this, so one wonders at the motivations and background of the ACLU founders, leaders and key supporters.
ACLU Demands NY Gov. Investigate Catholic Hospitals Refusing Life-saving AbortionsIntersting. One wing of the Democrat party wnats to investigate another wing of the Democrat party over abortions, the glue that holds the Democrat party together.
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.