Replies

"These guys don't seem to be concerned if the bill actually works, only that it is supported by the republicans."

First assumption, you don't know the political affiliation of the people who support the bill.

Second assumption, whether "these people" are concerned or not concerned.

The bill bans what it defines as Partial Birth Abortions, lacking a legal definition of such, Congress was forced to define what exactly was being banned. Will it stop unscrupulous doctors from performing variations on PBA's? Not anymore than a complete ban on all abortions would stop unscrupulous doctors from performing abortions. It also clearly lays out a narrow definition of what PBA’s will be allowed; danger to the mother’s life.

Anyone can find a way to circumvent any law, you can’t stop unscrupulous people from doing that, but you can’t also assume that the majority of doctors are unscrupulous individuals.

I’ve been following this debate for quite some time, and while I am not up to speed on it like Marvin, I do not see this as any sort of “betrayal”, but rather a small but significant victory for the good guys. We have a long way to go, but we seem to be on our way.

As for the stuff about Roe v. Wade...I would have signed a statement supporting Hillary’s candidacy to the presidency in order to get this passed and save some babies lives.

This is being politicized by anti-GOP people...do not play politics with this issue.

First assumption, you don't know the political affiliation of the people who support the bill.

You're right. I assumed that you're a republican.

Second assumption, whether "these people" are concerned or not concerned.

Yes, I'd assumed the reaction to the "betrayal" position being a rapid support of Mr. Bush indicated you and others were concerned about the political aspects of the bill rather than whether it would work as advertised.

Well, I think any doctor who performs a late term, or any, abortion is unscrupulous. My question is, will it prevent any late term abortions at all? The definition of the procedure is narrow. All an abortionist need do is do it another way, thereby vitiating the force of the "danger to the mother's life" clause.

I would like to see legislation that will halt late term abortions. It does not appear that this one will. It appears to be merely aimed at keeping pro-life people in the republican camp, when so many seem to be worried about republican commitment to their conservative principals.

I admit to being concerned about that myself, and I don't consider this bill to be a "betrayal" because I sympathize. The only real way to word the bill to work as intended is to specify the trimester being banned rather than the procedure being banned.

But, of course, if it's worded that way, the courts will throw it out because Roe turned on the 14th amendment's specification of "born or naturalized", so included any abortion prior to birth, even one second prior to birth.

That's why I sympathize but don't play the feel-good game. Roe is going to have to be clearly overturned or the power to confer citizenship is going to have to be returned exclusively to the states.

Until then, we are just fooling ourselves. I'm sorry if that offends you, Luis.