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

Skip to comments.

Challenges to "partial birth abortion" bill defeated; Senate passage likely
AP | 3/12/03 | DAVID ESPO

Posted on 03/12/2003 12:08:29 PM PST by kattracks

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last
To: Maeve
The legislation includes an exemption in cases in which the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother.

Critics argue the legislation is unconstitutional because it is drafted so vaguely that it could apply to more than one type of procedure, and fails to provide an exemption to protect the health of a mother.

So which is it?

21 posted on 03/12/2003 12:40:07 PM PST by American72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: American72
Health includes all sorts of garbage other than death.
22 posted on 03/12/2003 12:44:21 PM PST by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"This bill doesn't protect the health of women. It puts our daughters in harm's way," countered Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Santorum's principal antagonist across three days of occasionally emotional debate.

Wasn't it Santorum that was asking Boxer if a baby is still considered a fetus and can be killed if only the toe was still in the birth canal and Boxer just had no answer for that question? She absolutely refused to go on record with a yes or no answer.

This was about 4-5 years ago...anybody remember that?

23 posted on 03/12/2003 12:45:12 PM PST by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I posted this two days ago, but thought it would work here as well:

Three times during Clinton's presidency PBA was passed by both houses, only to be vetoed at his desk. Somehow, I don't think it will be vetoed this time.

Go pop some popcorn, and get ready for the plaintive wails of the NAG crowd howling in their irrelevancy. In fact, it's about time that their precious "Constitutional Right" (which appears nowhere in the Constitution) saw some limits... preferably as many as there are to my Second Amendment rights, which are explicitly delineated, and more strongly-worded than any other expressly protected right. "Shall not infringe"!

24 posted on 03/12/2003 12:52:20 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American72
The legislation includes an exemption in cases in which the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother.

Critics argue the legislation is unconstitutional because it is drafted so vaguely that it could apply to more than one type of procedure, and fails to provide an exemption to protect the health of a mother.

So which is it?

The problem has been that the "health" of the mother was being extended to "mental" health. If giving birth was going to be a traumatic experience that would have effected her mental state, then some doctors would use that as a reason to have this hideous procedure.

There is a BIG difference in protecting the life (pretty specific) or the health (way too vague) of the mother.

25 posted on 03/12/2003 12:52:21 PM PST by Crusher138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Lott was on Scarborough's (sp.) show last night on MSNBC and he did very well defending the President's plans for Iraq. Lott was made into a scoundrel by the RATS, but he stayed on in the Senate and that's good. He did apologize way too much and it did him no good at all. The RATS continued trashing him and still are doing it (racism is a Pubbie thing, they claim).

I like this Scarborough guy. He is much better than Matthews King, Chung, and virtually anyone on CNN and he beats out O'Reilly too! Your thoughts?

26 posted on 03/12/2003 12:56:47 PM PST by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Yeah - the Senate was all for a ban on partial birth abortion when there was a Democrat for president - who vetoed their bill(s). Now that there's a Republican in office, those who voted to ban partial birth abortion before are all saying it's an okay thing now. Hipocrites.
27 posted on 03/12/2003 12:58:12 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Praying fervently that this gets passed quickly.
28 posted on 03/12/2003 1:00:43 PM PST by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
NJ has a ban on partial birth abortion, which Christie Whitless signed after at first vetoing the bill. Evidently there is wording that meets the Supreme Court's standards.
29 posted on 03/12/2003 1:02:26 PM PST by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Would the Democrats perhaps filibuster this? Can they?
30 posted on 03/12/2003 1:08:18 PM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fury
Surprisingly, I heard several dems vote with the Republicans on this one - Cantwell and Lautenberg, believe it or not. Let's see how they vote on the bill.
31 posted on 03/12/2003 1:12:55 PM PST by secret garden (si vis pacem, para bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Maeve
He is a magnifcent man of character who understands what is at stake philosophically.

Rick Santorum: "Life is a prerequisite to Liberty."

Allow me to join in the kudos!

And here Hillary thought "I think therefore you are" was a prerequisite to Liberty!

32 posted on 03/12/2003 1:15:02 PM PST by Puddleglum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The legislation includes an exemption in cases in which the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother.

In other words, it's another essentially worthless squandering of moral capital to accomplish nothing of substance.

33 posted on 03/12/2003 1:18:34 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paulus Invictus
Mr. Fox and I were at the Exit/In in Nashville a couple years ago, drinking beer and listening to various musical groups have their 15 minute sets.

At one point I said to Mr. Fox that I recognized the lead singer, who was barefoot, drinking from a long neck, and singing a song he wrote about being in jail in New Mexico.

"I think I've seen him on cable news."

"Unlikely, Sweetheart."

"No, I have seen him before and I think he's in congress. Nice guy from Florida. Republican."

"No more beer for you, Mrs. Fox!"

Over Mr. Fox's protestations I inquired of the waitress, excuse me, "server," who after checking told us it was Congressman Joe Scarborough from Florida.

After his set we chatted with him. Nicest man in the world, no pretension. I wish he hadn't left Congress. I also wish Fox News had nabbed him.


34 posted on 03/12/2003 1:26:24 PM PST by hillsborofox (Question Abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: hattend
I don't remember that exchange, but I remember one between Santorum and Russ (Slimeroad) Feingold (D-WI), where Russ said (and later had stricken from the record) that if there was a birth during this process, that it still was up to the murderess and her instrument of death to decide whether to allow the child to live.
35 posted on 03/12/2003 1:29:16 PM PST by steveegg (Clinton and Blair didn't get UN authorization to launch Operation Desert (Kill Impeachment) Fox)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MattinNJ
Yes, praise the Lord

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, VOTE in US Senate, during the week of March 10, Act Now

36 posted on 03/12/2003 1:31:45 PM PST by Coleus (RU-486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Crusher138
Thanks for the clarification. The libs really never cease to amaze me anymore. They are really really sick.
37 posted on 03/12/2003 1:40:47 PM PST by American72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
It puts our daughters in harm's way," countered Sen. Barbara Boxer

Since our daughters start in our wombs, Senator 'Vlad the Impaler' Boxer, all abortions put our daughters (and sons) in harm's way.

38 posted on 03/12/2003 1:57:14 PM PST by goodieD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paulus Invictus
Joe was a good congressman. He left due to personal reasons. He really steals the format of O'Reilly (the talking points up on the screen for example), but he's good. He used to be in a band. They performed at the GOP Convention in 2000.
39 posted on 03/12/2003 1:58:08 PM PST by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
Here it is for all the world to see. Buck Foxer
40 posted on 03/12/2003 2:07:13 PM PST by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 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