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

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN - THE BETRAYAL IS NOW COMPLETE

NewsWithViews.com
By David Brownlow
May 9, 2003
Source

A politician would have a hard time finding a more loyal special interest group than with those of us who oppose the legalized child killing industry. For the last thirty years of the war on the unborn, we have worked tirelessly to elect pro-life, mostly Republican, politicians.

Our loyalty was so strong that even though the Republicans failed to deliver us a single pro-life victory, we continued to send them back to Washington year after year. For thirty years, we trusted the Republicans when they told us to be patient, because they had a plan and a party platform that said abortion was wrong.

We now know that everything they told us was a complete pack of lies.

We know that because the Senate has finally passed the long awaited "Partial Birth Abortion Ban," Senate Bill S.3. Rather than being a useful tool in the fight to stop a barbaric and indefensible method of child killing, S.3 reads more like an instruction manual for abortionists.

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)

With toothless restrictions like that, it is highly unlikely that even a single life will be saved. The only thing this will do is to make sure all the children are killed before the "entire fetal head" or the "fetal trunk past the navel" is showing. We waited thirty years for this?

Excuse me for shouting, but IF THE HEAD IS ALMOST OUT OF THE MOTHER, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO KILL THE KID? Do we hate children so much that we cannot wait 10 more seconds for the child to be born? 42,000,000 children killed since 1973 and this is the best they could come up with. What kind of people have we been putting into office?

If Senate Bill S.3 was just plain bad legislation, we could almost forgive the politicians for their incompetence. But believe it or not, this bill gets even worse. It gets a lot worse.

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,

You need to read that again. I've read it about 20 times and it still hurts to look at it.

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 extent of their betrayal is absolutely breath taking!

So now we know why the Republicans have gone thirty years without a single pro- life victory. These guys are not even pro-life! We have been fooling ourselves that somehow, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the years of partisan efforts were getting us closer to ending legalized abortion in America. But if the "sense" of the Senate is any indication, we have not even started the fight. We can now only hope that the House has enough sense to put S.3 out of it's misery.

A decades old policy of voting for the lesser of two evils has left us with a Republican Party that is a mere hollowed-out shell of its former self, broken beyond any hope of repair. The only way we are ever going to win this fight is by putting men and women of integrity into office who will not bow to the political pressures.

Clearly, the team we have in there now is not up to the task.


Partial- birth abortion ban hits snag over Roe v. Wade affirmation
"President Bush supports the ban, but there has been no indication if he would sign it into law if it included the Roe resolution."


S 3 ES

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 3


AN ACT

To prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS.

`CHAPTER 74--PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS

`Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

--1531'.

SEC. 4. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING ROE V. WADE.

Passed the Senate March 13, 2003.

Attest:

Secretary.

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 3

AN ACT

To prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.

END


Bush Signs Largest Family Planning Bill In U.S. History

Covenant News
Staff
January 11, 2002

On Thursday, January 10, 2002, the White House reported President Bush signed the ominous $15.4 billion foreign appropriations bill, H.R. 2506, for fiscal-year 2002. The bill authorizes $446.5 million U.S. tax dollars to be given to other countries for abortion- family planning activities throughout the world. The abortion-family planning funds approved by Bush represents an increase of $21.5 million over last year for international family planning.
[end of excerpt]
SOURCE

U.S. Quietly OKs Fetal Stem Cell Work - Bush allows funding despite federal limits on embryo use

White House killed human-cloning ban
Although President Bush has endorsed a complete ban on human cloning sponsored by senators Sam Brownback, R.-Kan., and Mary Landrieu, D.- La., White House lobbyists contacted Republican senators June 18 to ask them to vote that morning for cloture (a closing of debate to bring a legislative question to a vote) on the Senate's terrorism insurance bill (S 2600), thus preventing an up-or-down vote on a human cloning amendment that Brownback wanted to attach to the bill. His amendment would have banned the patenting of human embryos – effectively destroying any economic incentive for the experimental cloning of human beings."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News
KEYWORDS: abortion; bush; gop; pbaban2003; republican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 901-940 next last
To: windchime
The flipping out referred to the general agreements that appeared to be us vs. them, and you fell on the us side, so I lumped you in. Some people got banned from this thread, and I was referring to the "us" having some mercy due to the topic. That's all.
51 posted on 08/05/2003 5:20:38 AM PDT by bets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

Comment #52 Removed by Moderator

To: Jim Robinson; .30Carbine
This must be the "Misinformation Thread on Partial Birth Abortion." On the one hand we have a cadre of people telling us that this bill won't do what it says it will do. On the other hand there is a cadre that says "PBA has been banned" "it's a done deal." Perhaps you can show me where I'm wrong but aren't both of those positions false? I feel like we're having manure shoveled on us from both directions.
53 posted on 08/05/2003 5:35:38 AM PDT by TigersEye (I'm a proud McCarthyite. Let commie heads roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy
The only way we are ever going to win this fight is by putting men and women of integrity into office who will not bow to the political pressures.

It can't be done, give up. Fortunately it will all be over soon.

54 posted on 08/05/2003 5:35:59 AM PDT by biblewonk (Spose to be a Chrisssssssstian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: bets
"Some people got banned from this thread, and I was referring to the "us" having some mercy due to the topic. That's all."


I didn't realize anyone was banned from the thread. I agree, the topic is a sensitive one and should be discussed in a compassionate and scrupulous, manner.
55 posted on 08/05/2003 5:40:56 AM PDT by windchime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: windchime
dittos - peace

I got a good laugh from the "it will all be over soon" cmt. I needed one.

56 posted on 08/05/2003 5:46:47 AM PDT by bets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: bets
But based on the topic, consider mercy for why there is blindness in this area, where some don't want to appear to compromise.

That could be the case for some, where this topic is concerned, but it seems that many of those who "don't want to appear to compromise" don't seem to want to compromise in many other areas also.

57 posted on 08/05/2003 5:47:15 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I haven't followed some people lately, but from my memory back to early '98 on this site, I remember their views being consistently conservative and "right". I admit I may have missed something.
58 posted on 08/05/2003 5:54:12 AM PDT by bets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
This really makes me nautious. BUSH is either a CINO or a Moron.
59 posted on 08/05/2003 5:57:20 AM PDT by Verax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bets
"I got a good laugh from the "it will all be over soon" cmt. I needed one."


There's not much else funny on this topic. I'm with you, that comment brings at least a smile.
60 posted on 08/05/2003 5:57:40 AM PDT by windchime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
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.

61 posted on 08/05/2003 6:00:39 AM PDT by Trust but Verify (Will work for W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon
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.

62 posted on 08/05/2003 6:01:40 AM PDT by Sloth ("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: windchime
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.
63 posted on 08/05/2003 6:02:26 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify
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?
64 posted on 08/05/2003 6:07:57 AM PDT by Sloth ("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
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?

65 posted on 08/05/2003 6:13:05 AM PDT by Spiff (Have you committed one random act of thoughtcrime today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: grania
"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.

66 posted on 08/05/2003 6:29:10 AM PDT by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify
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?

67 posted on 08/05/2003 6:36:00 AM PDT by William Terrell (People can exist without government but government can't exist without people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
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.

68 posted on 08/05/2003 6:46:39 AM PDT by Dad was my hero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
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.
69 posted on 08/05/2003 6:47:41 AM PDT by Trust but Verify (Will work for W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
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.

70 posted on 08/05/2003 6:51:24 AM PDT by snowstorm12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
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.
71 posted on 08/05/2003 6:51:41 AM PDT by Trust but Verify (Will work for W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
I thought we told you to straighten out your act.
72 posted on 08/05/2003 6:52:25 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

It looks like the first several posts are orchestrated.
73 posted on 08/05/2003 6:55:19 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Liz
"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.
74 posted on 08/05/2003 7:01:01 AM PDT by windchime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Dad was my hero
"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.

75 posted on 08/05/2003 7:08:37 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify
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.
76 posted on 08/05/2003 7:11:15 AM PDT by Sloth ("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: TomB; omegatoo; Uncle Bill
"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.

77 posted on 08/05/2003 7:16:38 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Hey useful idiots! Why do America's enemies desperately want DemocRATS back in power?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify
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.

78 posted on 08/05/2003 7:23:54 AM PDT by William Terrell (People can exist without government but government can't exist without people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Consort; Jim Robinson; Admin Moderator
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

79 posted on 08/05/2003 7:24:17 AM PDT by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez; Trust but Verify; William Terrell; Consort; gsrinok; MinuteGal; ...
See #27
80 posted on 08/05/2003 7:24:32 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Hey useful idiots! Why do America's enemies desperately want DemocRATS back in power?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez; Trust but Verify; William Terrell; Consort; gsrinok; MinuteGal; ...
Excuse me! I meant, "See #77" (not #27)
81 posted on 08/05/2003 7:27:15 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Hey useful idiots! Why do America's enemies desperately want DemocRATS back in power?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Constantine XIII
See #77
82 posted on 08/05/2003 7:28:13 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Hey useful idiots! Why do America's enemies desperately want DemocRATS back in power?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
What do y'all think? Is Mercuria right about this? Is Mr. Santorum putting one over on us?

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

83 posted on 08/05/2003 7:29:00 AM PDT by Mo1 (Please help Free Republic and Donate Now !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
I don't think I'm a tad confused at all. If the founding fathers had wanted it legal, they could have done it when our country was founded. Abortion has been known as a process to end pregnancies since Hippocrates wrote in his oath that "I will not give a woman an abortive remedy..." 400 BC.

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.

84 posted on 08/05/2003 7:41:46 AM PDT by Dad was my hero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
The following passages from the article are so very clintonesque, meaning so directed to obfuscate and dissemble and twist the truth:

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!

85 posted on 08/05/2003 7:53:24 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; kattracks; William Terrell; Sabertooth
What do y'all think? Is Mercuria right about this? Is Mr. Santorum putting one over on us? Have we been betrayed by the Republicans? Looks to me like this bill says any doctor that uses the so-called partial birth abortion procedure to kill a baby gets fined or goes to jail.

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 woman’s cervix. While the fetus is stuck in this position, dangling partly out of the woman’s 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.

86 posted on 08/05/2003 7:53:43 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
See #86
87 posted on 08/05/2003 7:54:12 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Comments on #86?
88 posted on 08/05/2003 7:55:23 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
I prefer #85. LOL.
89 posted on 08/05/2003 8:00:08 AM PDT by Registered (77% of the mentally ill live in poverty, that leaves 23% doing quite well!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Registered
I agree.
90 posted on 08/05/2003 8:03:35 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Here's to Hillary's book sinking like the Clinton 2000 economy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Show me how you can perform the killing method without yanking the alive child down into the birth canal to beyond the connection of the umbilicus. Dissemble for someone else's manipulation ... you're efforts are transparent, especially on this thread.
91 posted on 08/05/2003 8:05:46 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Registered; bmwcyle; MHGinTN
"Prefer" what you want, but according to the text of the bill, PBA's are NOT banned if you perform them a certain way. I'm not talking about the author's propaganda. I'm talking about the exact text of the bill. Can you refute #86? I'm open to other interpretations. I don't actually want to believe the bill is powerless.
92 posted on 08/05/2003 8:06:46 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Show me how you can perform the killing method without yanking the alive child down into the birth canal to beyond the connection of the umbilicus.

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.

93 posted on 08/05/2003 8:08:53 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: omegatoo
The usual Bush Bashers out on a rant.
94 posted on 08/05/2003 8:10:19 AM PDT by Redleg Duke (Stir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: snowstorm12
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.

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.

95 posted on 08/05/2003 8:12:01 AM PDT by grania ("Won't get fooled again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: gsrinok
The secret that these basher refuse to acknowledge is that we can best win incrementally...not all at once. And even if we were to get it all at once, they would still be bitching that it wasn't fast enough, wasn't punitive enough and the bill wasn't written on the right shade of paper.

Face it, the President is delivering on his promises and this pisses off the Bush Bashers even more than it pisses off the liberals!

96 posted on 08/05/2003 8:14:22 AM PDT by Redleg Duke (Stir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
From what I've seen democrats will just do it faster than republicans. I'm tired of this threat. I bought into it for years. I see a bigger and more abusive government that ever before, and at least an equal share of that done at the hands of republicans.

Sell it somewhere else.

97 posted on 08/05/2003 8:16:51 AM PDT by William Terrell (People can exist without government but government can't exist without people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

YOU ROCK!


98 posted on 08/05/2003 8:17:02 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Jim, Like I posted already, this is a tirade by the usual gang of Bush Bashers, madder than hell that he is succeeding.

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!

99 posted on 08/05/2003 8:17:32 AM PDT by Redleg Duke (Stir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
This man, while obviously a heartfelt pro-lifer, is simply ignorant of the facts. Two things:

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.

100 posted on 08/05/2003 8:18:08 AM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 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