[My Favorite Headache]

It is more symbolic than anything else. I have read that this was pretty much the standard in this country and he was just signing this into law.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Not true. I don't have the statistics at hand, but there are still "late term" abortions being performed in this country. That is where the baby is born feet first, and before the head leaves the birth canal, they stick a needle into the base of the babies skull, all the while the baby is kicking, and then they suck out the baby's brains.

It is at present 2 inches from legal murder,.. in that given another two inches the baby would be OUT of the birth canal and delivered. THEN IT COULD BE CALLED MURDER AND PEOPLE TRIED AND CONVICTED.

You are going to hear an outcry from the womens lib groups, etc. after the signing of this today. Just watch!!

The American Medical Association, has previously (and very publicly) stated there is NEVER a threat to a womans health if she can deliver like this. Besides, it is breach!!

Perhaps some womens excuses for needing this are that they will kill themselves, or even the baby if it is born. But physically there is no threat to a woman. PERIOD. So Doctors need to get these women locked up if they are a threat to them or an unborn child. They should be in a mental institute until the birth of the child, then the child taken away from them.

This was a good move by the President. I welcome it!!

[Brookhaven]

It is more symbolic than anything else. I have read that this was pretty much the standard in this country and he was just signing this into law.

No, it isn't the standard. There are two pretty gray areas. A live birth during an abotion procedure, and a child that is born severly deformed. The argument is they would both have died anyway, so you shouldn't do anything to preserve their lives. The definition of deformed has been stretched over the years (and continues to be stretched) so that children that could have been saved and led long (if inperfect lives) are allowed to die.

The news announcer I saw on this story put an interesting spin on the story. "the bill would protect the rights of babies born alive, even if it was the result of an abortion." As though they shouldn't have rights, even if they are outside of the mother.

[tabsternager]

Actually it wasn't symbolic at all. It has happened many times, and there has been nothing, no law, to protect surviving babies of abortions, and finally when a bill which would protect them was brought up in Congress a couple of years ago, Clinton's pals blocked it from even coming up for a vote.

Jane Chastain wrote an excellent column, horribly sad, on it a couple of years ago. It should be in the archives under Worldnetdaily if you want to read it.

[HumanaeVitae]

No, no, no...see "You've got rights!" on NRO. This is an important development in the struggle for the unheard, the powerless, the unborn. The first limitation of abortion "rights" since 1973, thank God.