Recently in Abortion Category

Sometimes I wonder if I'm crazy, but then sometimes I think that regardless of what people think of me, they need at least a seed planted.
What would it take to convince you? Convince you of what, would be a good question. The answer though is startling: What would it take to convince you that your pet view of the world is wrong? For some, it might be what would it take to convince you that what you think the Bible says is not what it says. For others, what would it take to convince you that your view of civil rights in not what the constitution says.
Many of the "pet views" of people can be challenged in many ways. I'm going to address two categories, and for one, I'll address two different radical points of view.

Last week, some middle school students went of a school field trip to Planned Parenthood.

I would have no problem with such a trip under one condition: show them the aborted children.

(Warning - graphic may be upsetting)

The Demonrats in the House and Senate have proposed a bill (S.1173/H.R.1964) that will repeal the partial-birth abortion ban, specifically mentioned in Sec. 2(9), and override every State and local law restricting a woman's right to kill her child before it is born:

"Sec. 4(b)(1)(B) A government may not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability;"

"Sec. 4(b)(1)(C) A government may not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman;"

Of course, viability is defined by "the best medical judgment of the attending physician" (an abortionist, naturally), as is the health of the mother, which in the liberal mentality includes her "emotional health," and probably her economic health as well.

Strangely, the bill does not define "woman," so it may be taken to include minors as well. After all, if she can get pregnant, she must be a woman, right?

Well, facts have nothing to do with their arguments, as usual. In their "findings," Sec 2.(5) says, "Before Roe, it is estimated that thousands of women died annually in the United States as a result of illegal abortions." The truth is that, "by 1972, the year before the Roe v. Wade decision, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died from illegal or self-induced abortions." They also "found" that "an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions." Bollocks. According to the CDC, there were 586,800 abortions in 1972 ("The American Almanac -- Statistical Abstract of the United States" 113th edition).

Further straining the bounds of reason, Sec. 2(15)(B)and(C) say, "Federal protection of a woman's right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and other personnel who travel across State lines in order to provide reproductive health services to patients."

Congress was given the power to "regulate commerce... among the several States." It does indeed require having a mental disorder to interpret that to mean that Congress has power over everything that may even remotely involve any interstate transaction.

But of course, the liberals in Congress do not care about the U.S. Constitution. The bill itself tries to violate the Constitution. Sec. 6 says, "This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act." So, according to this bill, should it become law, a later Congress cannot override it? That's not constitutional. But when did that ever stop them?


| | Comments (130) | TrackBacks (0)

God bless America and the United States Supreme Court.

Partial birth abortion is no more.

Giuliani has reaffirmed his position that, "Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state-by-state basis, you have to make sure people are protected."

Of course, he was talking about the right to murder one's unborn child, not the right to protect oneself from a murderer, but if he is a man of principle, then that principle must hold for our Second Amendment rights, too. Naturally, one could also expect free telephone and internet service to protect our First Amendment rights, too.

This article shows up the lie that "abortion is not murder." Had all gone according to plan, Gianna Jessen would have been killed six weeks before she was due to be born. She has a life now. Had her abortion been successful, she would not have that life. Taking an innocent life is murder.

God bless Texas!

| | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

See, Texas protects life from fertilization on, and they don't have women being arrested for natural miscarriages or no in vitro fertilization.

These are the same sort of arguments that were being put forward against the marriage amendment. The far left is once again trying to divide cultural conservatives, but it seems that they're winning this war so far.

Update: Changed my terminology a little

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here