Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN - THE BETRAYAL IS NOW COMPLETE [BARF ALERT - ANTI-GOP PROPAGANDA]
NewsWithViews.com ^ | May 9, 2003 | By David Brownlow

Posted on 08/02/2003 10:39:40 PM PDT by Uncle Bill

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 901-940 next last
To: Uncle Bill
. The 48 Republican Senators who voted to approve S.3, pledged that,
"the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and such decision should not be overturned".


Disgusting, even the conservative party has gone liberal.Does anyone know of a conservative party in America?
251 posted on 08/05/2003 4:39:21 PM PDT by wgeorge2001 ("The truth will set you free.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
I have been a nurse for a long time and I have seen a lot of death-- people maimed in auto accidents, gunshot wounds, you name it. I have seen surgical procedures of every sort. But in all my professional years, I had never witnessed anything like this.

This and her description of the procedure above (which I do not have the heart to read) are almost enough to make me wish there isn't a God. That way He won't get mad when he sees the utter barbarity on display here.
252 posted on 08/05/2003 4:41:10 PM PDT by Live free or die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: epow
C'mon, you're just parroting the anti-GOP propaganda. It was NOT the Republicans who approved the detestable Roe vs Wade clause. That was inserted and approved by the DEMOCRATS and a handful of pro-abortion Republicans (the usual suspects).
253 posted on 08/05/2003 4:41:49 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: wgeorge2001
That is a dispicable lie. 48 Republicans did not approve that amendment!
254 posted on 08/05/2003 4:42:32 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: wgeorge2001
Lie, lie, lie. That was a Democrat amendment approved by the DEMOCRATS!!!
255 posted on 08/05/2003 4:44:09 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: wgeorge2001
And this is why I hate to have this kind of propaganda posted to FR. People keep repeating the lies over and over and over. Sheesh. How about doing a little background work of your own. Who voted for and against the bill? Who voted for and against the Harkin amendment? No, you'd rather just keep repeating the lie. Your agenda is obvious.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/957323/posts

256 posted on 08/05/2003 4:49:31 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Are we now to believe that the GOP haters who oppose this legislation, ie, the Libertarians, paleocons, Buchananites, Reformers, and, apparently, the Constitution Party, along with the Democrats, Socialists, liberals, et al, are correct

Yeah I know, I promised to drop out. But I can't leave without correcting any impression you may have that I belong in the above mentioned groups. I have been voting and working for the Republican party since before most of you were born (1958). I have never voted for a Democrat, Libertarian, Buchananite, Perotista, Constitution party, etc. I voted for GW Bush, and I voted for his father twice. In fact, I have never NOT voted for the Republican candidate in any national election in which I was qualified to vote. But at age 66 I have finally hit the wall. My old fashioned style of American is no longer represented by any party, and I don't owe any of them my vote or my loyalty.

Now I really am outta here.

257 posted on 08/05/2003 5:39:06 PM PDT by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Yeti; epow; wgeorge2001; F.J. Mitchell
House OKs ban on partial-birth abortion

By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 5, 2003

[excerpt only]

A ban on partial-birth abortion is well on its way to becoming law, after the House approved it late yesterday on a 282-139 vote.

"After eight long years, Congress will finally send the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act to a president willing to sign it," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican.

"The debate over the rights of the unborn will continue, and new battles will be fought. But in the meantime, the American people will take this one stand ... on behalf of the innocent," he said.

Voting for the bill were 220 Republicans and 62 Democrats. Voting against it were 133 Democrats, five Republicans and the chamber's lone independent. Three Republican and 10 Democratic lawmakers did not vote.

Congress has twice passed a ban on partial-birth abortion, but both measures were vetoed by President Clinton, and although the House overrode the vetoes, the Senate did not.

In a statement after the vote last night, President Bush called it "a shared priority that will help build a culture of life in America."

...A Gallup poll in January found that 70 percent of the public favors a ban on the procedure.

The key difference between the nearly identical House and Senate partial-birth-abortion-ban bills is that the Senate adopted language on the floor reaffirming the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

The House bill contains no such language, and Republicans said this language will be removed in conference.

258 posted on 08/05/2003 5:43:34 PM PDT by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: All
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
June 4, 2003

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)

H.R. 760 - Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003
(Rep. Chabot (R) OH and 161 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly supports enactment of H.R. 760, which would ban an abhorrent procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion. The bill is narrowly tailored and exempts those procedures necessary to save the life of the mother.

Partial-birth abortion is a procedure that is not accepted by the medical community. Approximately 30 States have attempted to ban it. The Administration strongly believes that enactment of H.R. 760 is both morally imperative and constitutionally permissible.

The Administration strongly opposes any amendment to the bill that would limit its application to a time after the child is determined to be viable, which could allow this procedure to be used as late as the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy. The Administration supports the exception for procedures necessary to save the life of the mother, but strongly opposes any amendments to create additional exceptions because these exceptions may create open-ended loopholes and allow the use of the procedure even in the third trimester.

259 posted on 08/05/2003 5:46:09 PM PDT by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Santorum is as anti-abortion as I am and I'm aginst it across the board. Whoever says different is full of crap.
260 posted on 08/05/2003 5:47:06 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
link to above document
261 posted on 08/05/2003 5:48:16 PM PDT by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
"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", make sure the child is killed before "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother". (Actual text of SB S.3 in quotes)

Interesting use of "quotation" marks.

262 posted on 08/05/2003 6:04:49 PM PDT by HapaxLegamenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Couldn't an abortionist drive a spike through the gap in the unfused cranial sutures, clear through the head and into the base of the skull?

Yes that could be done .

263 posted on 08/05/2003 6:06:30 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

Comment #264 Removed by Moderator

To: jwalsh07
Santorum or the perpetually petulent ones? Who to believe and trust?

We know what Santorum's agenda is, life. For "them" preserving life appears to be second to their hatred of the President. What a bitter and sad bunch of people.

265 posted on 08/05/2003 6:32:28 PM PDT by CWOJackson (Smile for the loonys over there...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
You got that right Chief.
266 posted on 08/05/2003 6:37:39 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
How do you know when a politician is lying?

When he moves his lips!

267 posted on 08/05/2003 6:46:21 PM PDT by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
This reporting is sad. All these years and effort and we end up with a mild restriction on how they kill late-term babies.

The Dims and the abortion industry are laughing up their sleeves and selling fetal tissue.
268 posted on 08/05/2003 6:48:49 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Mr. Robinson, speaking as one of the few pro-choice conservatives on FR, let me say that even I think that this article was a sick hack-job.

I actually think that the ban, as passed, is a good thing. This procedure should be outlawed;or at least restricted severely.

Having said that, I would point out some of the responses that you are refuting...as always, when this issue comes up, rational, logical discussion seems to become impossible through all the fire-and-brimstone.

The politicians we all are trying to influence to our side on a host of other, equally important issues, do not fail to see this.

Kudos, then, to yourself and FR for exposing this insidious attempt to slander and debase our President.

269 posted on 08/05/2003 6:49:13 PM PDT by Long Cut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
Ping.
270 posted on 08/05/2003 6:50:52 PM PDT by Long Cut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
I actually think that the ban, as passed, is a good thing. This procedure should be outlawed;or at least restricted severely.

The question is what has been outlawed? If a third-trimester child can still be sliced and diced like steak in a cuisanart inside the womb--and the abortionists simply shift to doing it there--what really has been accomplished?

271 posted on 08/05/2003 6:54:27 PM PDT by Kevin Curry (Put Justice Janice Rogers Brown on the Supreme Court--NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Live free or die
"This and her description of the procedure above (which I do not have the heart to read) are almost enough to make me wish there isn't a God. That way He won't get mad when he sees the utter barbarity on display here. "

You are better off not reading it. It made me cry. (and I don't do that just from reading stuff usually)
272 posted on 08/05/2003 6:54:49 PM PDT by honeygrl (I reserve the right to take any statement and copy it out of context.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry; RnMomof7
The question is what has been outlawed? If a third-trimester child can still be sliced and diced like steak in a cuisanart inside the womb--and the abortionists simply shift to doing it there--what really has been accomplished?

Well, assuming that the remaining allowed abortion procedures would appear to require more technical skill, perhaps the abortionist can charge a higher fee for late-term abortions.
273 posted on 08/05/2003 7:03:04 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: snowstorm12
To believe that life begins at conception is not a "religious" belief -- it is a scientific and obvious fact!
274 posted on 08/05/2003 7:03:09 PM PDT by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
"what really has been accomplished?"

One step. In the direction you want.

Believe me, I would LOVE to see that much progress on Second Amendment issues.

That one step, small as it may seem, is a WIN for your side. Take all you can get; the Left will work as if the devil himself was whipping their backs to erase it.

Oh, and you STILL have to get this past the courts...particularly the Supreme one, which has been...unpredictable of late.

275 posted on 08/05/2003 7:03:18 PM PDT by Long Cut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: snowstorm12
Best put on some Nomex threads, dude. People who express that opinion around here find that it can get HOT, fire-and-brimstone hot, in short order.
276 posted on 08/05/2003 7:06:01 PM PDT by Long Cut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
This is a step in the right direction, albeit still just a small step. But anything beyond a step is impossible today. It is very easy to attack the President over this…it doesn’t put an end to abortion. But what do the complainers offer up in exchange?

When has the libertarian party ever succeeded in pushing a bill through Congress involving abortion? Other then abandoning it when politically expedient, what has pat buchanan’s contributions been to stopping the murder of the unborn? Which Senators from the Constitution Party opposed Roe-v-Wade?

It’s very simple to attack those who have actually done something, but what do they offer in exchange? The only way we are ever going to put an end to this hideous practice is to insure that a Conservative Supreme Court becomes a reality and remains in place for decades to come. That means we have to reelect President Bush and give him the greatest Congressional majority possible.

Or we can sit on the sidelines, complain and accomplish nothing whatsoever other then perhaps actually hinder this progress.

277 posted on 08/05/2003 7:13:04 PM PDT by CWOJackson (Smile for the loonys over there...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Shoot, Warrant, how many times have you and I discussed that very thing?

Oh, BTW, I don't know if you heard or not, but Mini Cut was born on July 10th, a beautiful blond boy, at 7 pounds, 12 ounces.

I brag about him often.

278 posted on 08/05/2003 7:22:58 PM PDT by Long Cut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
** Well, assuming that the remaining allowed abortion procedures would appear to require more technical skill, perhaps the abortionist can charge a higher fee for late-term abortions. **

It appears that way



http://www.spuc.org.uk/images/hysterotomy.htm
279 posted on 08/05/2003 7:27:27 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
Oh yes, I sent you a BZ on the arrival but your head was too high in the clouds...darned airdales.
280 posted on 08/05/2003 7:39:10 PM PDT by CWOJackson (She's posting up a storm to the gallery...LOL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Oh, thanks, my bad. Yeah, we've been on cloud ten hereabouts.
281 posted on 08/05/2003 7:42:32 PM PDT by Long Cut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
I'm confused. I thought this bill was still in committee.

In what can only be described as the mildest abortion restrictions that one could possibly put into words, Sec.1531 instructs the "doctor" to make sure and kill the child before "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", make sure the child is killed before "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother". (Actual text of SB S.3 in quotes)

No way GWB signed a bill with this in it.

282 posted on 08/05/2003 7:44:44 PM PDT by StopGlobalWhining (Vote Bush 04 - Extend "assault weapons" ban - Support Open Borders - UN Global Governance -Kyoto USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
It appears that way

Yeah, give the abortionists a raise. How they'll howl.

You'd think the two parties could at least put up a good pillow fight.
283 posted on 08/05/2003 7:51:41 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: omegatoo
No kidding. I guess we should all write President Bush and ask him to veto this bill.
284 posted on 08/05/2003 8:01:03 PM PDT by ShandaLear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: StopGlobalWhining
It is. And that's not the text. What you copied and pasted is pure propaganda.
285 posted on 08/05/2003 8:05:16 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Does this bill permit partial birth abortions (in extreme cases) or not? I think it does, therefore it's a non-starter.
286 posted on 08/05/2003 8:09:26 PM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell; Jim Robinson; MHGinTN
"You're right. I assumed that you're a republican."

No, you assumed that everyone who supported this was a Republican, you don't know that, and you weren't talking about me.

"Yes, I'd assumed the reaction to the "betrayal" position being a rapid support of Mr. Bush indicated you and others were concerned about the political aspects of the bill rather than whether it would work as advertised."

You again assumed that everyone who supports the bill, or doesn’t see the bill as a “betrayal” also supports Bush…you don’t know that either, so I was right about you making broadline assumptions and generalizations.

Now, I did notice your shift, you’re talking about late term abortions, this was never discussed when this bill was going through the legislative process, and the only thing that Bush ever spoke about was banning partial birth abortions…so what you are doing is giving everyone crap because this bill does not address late term abortions…it was never intended to, and had you been paying any attention at all the entire time this was being discussed in Congress, you would have not been “surprised” by the posting of a three month old article from a presidential candidate that needs to strip Bush of some votes in order to have any kind of relevancy.

That’s what kills me, you talk about me and others standing in support of this bill as a political ploy , yet, the ones who are obviously politicizing this are those condemning a bill they never read until it was passed. Where the hell was all the activism before this point?

You, Uncle Bill, Merc, and the bunch over at LostPriviledges.com don’t give a rat’s ass about the aborted babies, this is politics to you all.

287 posted on 08/05/2003 8:20:45 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (The Knight Has A Thousand Names)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
This bill permits partial birth abortions, does it not?
288 posted on 08/05/2003 8:23:27 PM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Liz
"....yeah, sure, she values every single life and every single person....as long as they don't inconvenience her and just as long as they can be used to achieve her political goals......"

You've told the whole truth. She just leaves that inconvenience and use part out.
289 posted on 08/05/2003 8:24:37 PM PDT by windchime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
Why don't you read it Fred instead of having someone do the thinking for you, there's a novel idea.
290 posted on 08/05/2003 8:27:16 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (The Knight Has A Thousand Names)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
So Fred, you believe that the mother's life should be sacrificed for the chance at a birth?

You think that once women are pregnant they become non-persons and so secondary to the fetus growing inside them that they do not deserve a chance at living through a dangerous pregnancy?

Why don't you get pregnant Fed and let the rest of us decide whether you live or die.
291 posted on 08/05/2003 8:30:14 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (The Knight Has A Thousand Names)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
This bill permits partial birth abortions courtesy of the Pubbies and their Dim friends.

How can they get away with advertising this as the PBA ban, huh Darkdrake?

292 posted on 08/05/2003 8:30:48 PM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
All pregnancies carry a risk, Darkdrake.

I see what this bill is. Too bad you don't. Would you like some wool over your eyes?
293 posted on 08/05/2003 8:33:26 PM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: honeygrl
Those who wish to use it politically are calling it a “betrayal”; obviously, there was not much of a "betrayal" when it was going through the legislative process, otherwise some of these "champions of truth" would have been squawking long before this.

The timing of the post is also significant, this article was first posted on that site back in May, where were all these “conservatives” before now?

If these guys are representative of the pro-life movement, it could very well be that the GOP is the only chance the unborn have left in this world...these "pro-lifers" paid absolutely no attention to this bill as it worked its way through Congress.

What the hell were they doing?

Probably bitching about JimRob over at LostPriviledges.com, now, they've found something new to bitch about.

294 posted on 08/05/2003 8:40:01 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (LP is bragging that they got over 100 new members this month...they were all me guys :-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
Answer the questions Fred, I am sure some of our lady FReepers wish to see your answer.

Once they become pregnant, is the mother's life worth less than the fetus'?
295 posted on 08/05/2003 8:41:37 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (LP is bragging that they got over 100 new members this month...they were all me guys :-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz; Miss Marple; Howlin; PhiKapMom; ohioWfan; Fawnn; DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet; MS.BEHAVIN
"This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is 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."

Ladies, it seems that our friend Fred objects to this passage in the Partial Birth Abortion ban passed by Congress. I have questioned him on whether he believes that once a woman becomes pregnant, her life becomes secondary to the life of the fetus to the point where a PBA should not be performed, even if going through the pregnancy means a heightened risk of death to the mother.

I am interested in his answer. Are you all?

296 posted on 08/05/2003 8:46:52 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (LP is bragging that they got over 100 new members this month...they were all me guys :-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez; Fred Mertz
"Once they become pregnant, is the mother's life worth less than the fetus'? "

Yes, inquiring minds want to know.
297 posted on 08/05/2003 8:47:06 PM PDT by honeygrl (I reserve the right to take any statement and copy it out of context.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
You answered my question quite well, Darkdrake.

The PBA ban permits partial birth abortions.

Just for you to make your case give me one example of the need to kill a baby this way.

I'm waiting....
298 posted on 08/05/2003 8:52:03 PM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
The only way we are ever going to put an end to this hideous practice is to insure that a Conservative Supreme Court becomes a reality and remains in place for decades to come.

A Conservative Supreme Court could correct Roe v. Wade .. but they will still complain because the issue will go back to the states .. a some states will out law it and some won't

299 posted on 08/05/2003 8:52:04 PM PDT by Mo1 (I have nothing to add .. just want to see of I make the cut and paste ;0))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez; Fred Mertz
I await your response, Fred.
300 posted on 08/05/2003 8:53:16 PM PDT by justshe (Educate....not Denigrate !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 901-940 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson