Posted on 08/02/2003 10:39:40 PM PDT by Uncle Bill
Do I think Senator Santorum is pulling one over on us? .. No
I have read about the death of Sen Sentorum's infant son and the book his wife wrote .. I watched the debate on the Senate Floor that he gave and IMO he is in his heart sincere about banning PBA
I realize that there are a number RINO's in Congress .. but Santorum isn't one of them
Furthermore, it was not the "Federal Government" per se that "gave us abortion" but a group of unelected supreme court justices that pronounced that within the findings of the right to privacy, a woman has a right to do with her body as she sees fit. But in this country you don't, as that right is not absolute. AND it should never extend to the body of somebody else. It went to the supreme court from the state of Texas which had it banned to begin with. And to add confusion to the mix, we have a mixture of laws, apparently conflicting, about the status of a baby in utero. If a pregnant woman is attacked by someone who injures her and the baby dies, in many states the attacker can be charged with some degree of murder, but in the same state if she was on route to an abortion clinic to have the baby killed, nothing happens. It is dependent on what she decides the status of her pregnancy is, is it wanted or unwanted? If she wants it or if she doesn't want it, either position the state supports because of federal law.
The federal constitution expressly says that a person shall not be deprived of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. So the issue boils down to whether or not this is a person, and unless you have some greater knowledge than I have, this is a person. At conception it may not look like you or me but it is a person none the less. Not a potential person as it will become nothing else (not an eggplant or a puppy) if left to mature naturally.
Not content to just write a watered down, sorry excuse for an abortion ban, the Senate goes on in Sec. 4, to let us all know "The Sense on the Senate Concerning Roe. v. Wade". I am not sure what kind of sense these people have, but we have definitely found out what we get for thirty years of loyalty. 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".
Folks, that is a clintonian LIE. 'You need to read that again' ... the author is purposely LYING to the reader by twisting the facts. The Harkin 'sense of the Senate' (S.4) was voted upon prior to the S.3 bill as offered by Santorum. The S.3 bill (which received its designation prior to the Harkin offering, so Harkin's non-binding got S.4 designation) was voted upon after more debate and that bill was passed, then the Harkin ploy was attached to the S.3 bill as an effort to make it an amendment. As I recall, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and one or two other Republicans voted to support Harkin's 'Sense of the Senate' but they definitely did not vote to make the Harkin NON-BINDING resolution a part of the S.3 bill for passage.
What the author of the article tried to do was have the reader believe 48 Republican Senators voted to have Roe codified into Senate passed law. Count the number of Republican votes for the Harkin non-binding resolution. It comes up far short of 48! Mercuria apparently read the lies the way the author intended, and was led astray. The DNC would be ecstatic if large numbers of republican voters were as easily led astray and manipulated. What has our nation become when blatant lies persuade so easily?! LIES are DNC daily tools, used often and with malice of forethought, to confuse and manipulate We the People. Sadly, too many people swallow the lies without choking, then become the willing dupes of the dissemblers and liars.
The author of the piece wrote, "You need to read that again. I've read it about 20 times and it still hurts to look at it." What utter calculated bullshit! An invitation to reread the lies in an effort to have the reader swallow them whole!
Then this blatant liar goes on in clintonesque fashion to say, "Please understand that it was not just a few renegade Senators who voted for this. It was 48 Republican Senators, including every one of them who ever told us they were pro-life, who put their name on a bill that says; Roe v. Wade was "appropriate." This is a clear, unambiguous reaffirmation of the illegal Supreme Court decision that started this whole mess back in 1973. If I had not read it for myself I would not believe it. The author is a lying agent of dnc propaganda, willingly or unwittingly. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume unwittingly. What kind of person who is so easily manipulated is suited to public office. Don't we have enough democrat liars and thieves, dissemblers and murder champions? How very clintonesque to lie and dissemble in order to try and create political capital regardless of the damage done to the nation!
According to the description of a PBA from Clarence Thomas:
Stenberg v. Carhart (2000): "After dilating the cervix, the physician will grab the fetus by its feet and pull the fetal body out of the uterus into the vaginal cavity. At this stage of development, the head is the largest part of the body. . . . the head will be held inside the uterus by the womans cervix. While the fetus is stuck in this position, dangling partly out of the womans body, and just a few inches from a completed birth, the physician uses an instrument such as a pair of scissors to tear or perforate the skull. The physician will then either crush the skull or will use a vacuum to remove the brain and other intracranial contents from the fetal skull, collapse the fetus head, and pull the fetus from the uterus."
Now to me, that looks like as long as you can't see the navel, you can still perform a Partial Birth Abortion and it will be legal according to this:
1531 A)`(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;
Tell me where I'm wrong.
That's why I was asking. You don't have to accuse everyone of having an agenda. If there's no way to perform a PBA other than how it's stated in 1531, then that's great.
I really don't think you get it. For many (most, all ?) of us who are pro-life, a baby is just as alive just before he/she is separated from its mother as just after. Any child who is viable outside of the womb who is destroyed has been murdered.
Think about what you're saying. A doctor can decide who should live and who should die? Based on what? Who appointed that doctor to be God? Once that child is viable, there is nothing to discuss. It's protected by the Constitution.
Face it, the President is delivering on his promises and this pisses off the Bush Bashers even more than it pisses off the liberals!
Sell it somewhere else.
I believe that in their twisted minds, they think that only a massive geo-political upheaval, with the associated bloodbath of "the guilty" will be sufficient to punish the evil-doers of our society.
They are some really sick puppies!
1. The bill was written the way it was to fit the Supreme Court's torturous Nebraska ruling that forced lawmakers to write the law in a very defined way to avoid it getting declared unconstitutional. My understanding is that it took the pro-life groups months just to find the right language to make sure the PBA Ban wouldn't be declared unconstitutional.
2. The foolish Roe affirmation was an amendment attached by liberals in the Senate. If this guy wants to find out who affirms Roe and who doesn't, he ought to try looking at the vote on the amendment itself.
Once the amendment had been attached, it would have been the height of folly to kill the entire bill because of one amendment that has no legal teeth at all.
This man is uninformed.
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.