PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN - THE BETRAYAL IS NOW COMPLETE [BARF ALERT - ANTI-GOP PROPAGANDA]

NewsWithViews.com ^ | May 9, 2003 | By David Brownlow

[Trust but Verify]

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)

Your editorial comments notwithstanding, the section you posted is taken out of context. Here is what the section you posted looks like in context

Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited `(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. 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. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.

`(b) As used in this section--

`(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which--

`(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, 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, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus;

You, Uncle Bill, are a damnable liar and should be banished from this site. Shame on you! The Senate bill says the opposite of what you claim it says.

[Sloth]

Bush can only the sign or not sign the bill as handed to him. Would rather he just not sign this bill at all?

I wouldn't sign it in a million years.

[Liz]

I read some of the transcript but Her Heinous was so "tolerant and compassionate"
about killing innocent unborn babies that I had to stop.............I got physically ill.

[Sloth]

So it is it your contention that an abortionist will not look at that section as a formula for how to perform a partial birth abortion legally?

[Spiff]

The language about the procedure, while questionable, is still no different from the House version. It seeks to ban Partial Birth Abortion, not eliminate late term abortion alltogether. I wish we could do that - maybe next session.

The thing that feels like a betrayal is Section 4, the re-affirmation of Roe v. Wade. Having so many Republicans vote for something that says that killing babies is an "important constitutional right" feels like a cold knife in the back to every pro-life Republican.

That being said, I'm sure section 4 will be dropped in committee and won't be in the final version signed by the President. It was just politics - a way to get the thing through the Senate and past the obstructionist Dems.

The net effect is that, once signed, the grisly Partial Birth Abortion procedure will be outlawed in America. A victory, to be sure. But why do I still feel betrayed by this bill?

[cricket]

"This abortion bill from the Senate might be awful. But, it's a first step."

Agree; and for with just a few more Libs in Washington doing our work; or even an Algore for President; this bill would not exist.

Am hoping, that this is the first step, for sure and that the following ones come more easily and quickly.

[William Terrell]

Thanks for posting the entire relevant section. I read the thread up to this point and I'm still not sure who's accusing whom of what. Reading your post did bring up a couple questions in my mind.

. . .Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs . . .

If a doctor performs a partial birth abortion, how is it to be proved that that act is in, or affect interstate commerce or not? If the procedure is judged not in, or affects interstate commerce, the doctor walks?

How exactly does that apply?

Regarding section 1531, the definition of partial birth abortion as used in that section, does this mean that any less than the entire head is exposed, or the legs and pelvis only of the child are exposed, the abortion can be performed?

I read it over several times and that's what it says to me. What am I missing?

[Dad was my hero]

The issue of abortion should be left to each individual State.

I'm sorry, I could not disagree with you more. We fought a civil war over the issue of state's rights and the spread of slavery to new territories and the issue of "personhood" for blacks. A person is a person from the moment of conception and neither the state or federal government should have any right to deem them any less. They have distinctly different genetics from their mother and the apparent only issue that allows them to be deemed less than human is their location of residence. It seems to me that this is already addressed in the Preamble to the Constitution that says "We the People of the United States... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." if this doesn't mean just the founders and their immediate children, then it means all future generations as yet unborn.

I just don't adhere to the thought that you can have some fundamental rights in some states and not others especially one as important as life.

[Trust but Verify]

That section describes PBa. That is how they are done, that is what is being outlawed. That is what people want outlawed. If your contention is that this is an outline to help physicians skirt the law by changing the procedure, I disagree. This is only one portion of the law. You have to take the law in its totality. The law fulfills the wishes of its supporters, notwithstanding efforts by some to distort it.

[snowstorm12]

With toothless restrictions like that, it is highly unlikely that even a single life will be saved.

WELL DUH! Either way, when this bill is signed it will be quickly laughed out of court, shot down and rightfully so. All of it is based on propaganda and is bad medicine. Doctors should be able to make the best decision for each individual patient, government should stay out of the business of playing doctor just because the procedure goes against their personal religious beliefs.

[Trust but Verify]

I do not pretend to understand the whole interstate commerce thing. I have to trust that the writers of these laws know what they are doing and put out a bill which closes as many loopholes as humanly possible. Certainly, I trust that the sponsors of this bill, like Senator Santorum, aren't going to pass a bill that will not have the desired effect.

[Consort]

I thought we told you to straighten out your act.

[Consort]

It looks like the first several posts are orchestrated.

[windchime]

"I got physically ill."

Understandable!! Their debate must have been a sight to behold on C Span.

My favorite was her emphasis on what the RECORD should show:

Mrs. CLINTON. If the Senator will yield for one final point, I want the RECORD to be very clear that I value every single life and every single person..............

Sure she does.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I just don't adhere to the thought that you can have some fundamental rights in some states and not others especially one as important as life."

It matters little what YOU believe in, the Constitution does not give the Federal government the right to regulate that.

Perhaps you are a tad confused, it was when the Federal government got involved that the right to kill the unborn was created.

Trust the Feds on this?

Look at what they've done to date.

[Sloth]

As William Terrell pointed out, the abortion can still be performed if certain parts of the anatomy are not removed before death. This bill does not outlaw PBA. It outlaws the way that PBAs are commonly performed. If the Senate wanted to outlaw PBA, they'd have stated that no abortion could occur if ANY part of a living baby's body was outside the mother's.

[Matchett-PI]

"Yea, this whole thread has gone over my head too. They wanted a PBA ban, they got a PBA ban, and now they are bitching that Bush didn't ban ALL late term abortions. Hey, I want abortion banned too, but let's quit moving the goalposts. This would have never passed if it banned something other than PBA."

It wouldn't have gone over your head if you had checked the source for this post. Follow the money:

The source: David Brownlow - Constitution Party Candidate for U.S. Congress, District 3, Oregon

Here are my 2 replies to the person who sent me Brownlow's political campaign ad by private FReepmail:

1.) This is a third party candidate.

Despite wishful thinking, there are only two _viable_ parties.

Of those two viable parties, there is only one in which conservatives have any voice at all.

A vote for ANY third party candidate, ANY DemocRAT candidate, or not voting at all, is aiding and abetting the enemy.

End of story.

Please copy my response on to the others you pinged this political ad to, will you? Thanks!

===

2.) What this guy has to say is NOT valid until he can show where abortionist doctors and their abortionist laywers will now start voting Republican instead of DemocRAT.

That's no more going to happen than for the terrorists and their supporters in this country to switch from voting DemocRAT and start voting Republican.

The scum of the earth vote for and support the DemocRAT party. That is not going to change.

Anyone who sits at home and doesn't vote Republican -- or votes third party -- is (knowingly or unknowingly), aiding and abetting America's enemies in their efforts to get the RAT party back in power at all levels.

[William Terrell]

I do not pretend to understand the whole interstate commerce thing.

Neither do I. It's home to regulations banning both firearms and drugs in ways that I admit I can't see has anything to do with interstate commerce.

But the definition of partial birth abortion, that disturbs me. Doesn't it say that regardless of the term in which the procedure is done, the procedure can continue within the law so long as the head is exposed only to, say, the mouth, or the body exposed only to, say, the pelvis?

I guess the question I have, is an abortionist able to terminate the pregnancy without exosing the whole head or the body from feet to navel. If they can, I just fail to see how this legislation changes anything.

There must be something I'm missing.

[Constantine XIII]

I agree with Consort, this whole thing looks like it has been staged for our "benefit". A dozen people from a "trusted source" telling us that this bill is a Trojan horse is enough to convince many honest people that it is bogus. Unfortunately, if it is disappeared these same folks will cry CENSORSHIP! and cause all kinds of headaches for hours to come.

The fact of the matter is that this article came from the website of a rival presidential candidate and that it deliberately distorts the content of the bill. Further more, the "dozen" happen to be a dirty dozen and are known anti-Republican agitators--the sort who are STILL proud they voted for Ross Perot. They, like the Greens and a million other hopeless microparties, won't be happy with anyone who refuses to ram their idea of utopia down our throats. It is likely on this basis that Uncle Bill, the poster of this article, has been banned.

I therefore propose that this thread be treated with the same level of contempt and request an immediate ZOT. Further more, Uncle Bill should be flayed by the Viking Kittens and the floor should left open for further mockery.

JMHO, o' course! :p

[Matchett-PI]

See #27