I am not a legal scholar—thank you, Jesus—but even I can see that the Supreme Court decision yesterday is scarcely a complete victory for those who hate abortion. Still, one takes what one can get.
Think what you want about the president—his war-time leadership has lacked, well, leadership—but none can deny his stubborn position on abortion. In 2003 he signed into law a ban on partial birth abortion. A number of legal challenges have arisen since then, but they were quashed yesterday.
George Bush’s new, conservative Supreme Court delivered a victory to anti-abortion activists yesterday when it upheld the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Act, which outlaws a specific, relatively rare procedure usually carried out on pregnant women reaching the end of the second trimester.
And what exactly is ‘partial birth abortion’? Glad you asked.
The entire infant is delivered except the head. A scissors is jammed into the base of the skull. A tube is inserted into the skull, and the brain is sucked out. The now-dead infant is pulled out.
Charming, yes? The more accurate name for this is infanticide, a procedure widely practiced in the classical world. The Spartans—those of 300 fame—were masters at it. And the Democrats, so timorous when facing Islamic terrorists, are absolutely brave, courageous and bold when gunning for the life of a newborn.
But scarcely had the court adjourned before our heroic Democrats jumped up to defend the grisly practice.
From Eve Gartner of Planned Parenthood:
This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women’s health and safety. … This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them.
I love Democrat language! Sticking a pair of scissors into the brains of a child falls under the rubric of ‘best interest of women’s health and safety.’
From our lovely Hillary:
Today’s decision blatantly defies the Court’s recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother.
Hard to see how a woman who resorts to partial birth abortion can be termed a ‘mother.’ But I quibble.
From empty suit Barack Hussein Obama:
I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women.
From pretty little thing John Edwards:
I could not disagree more strongly with today’s Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women.
Yes, sweet-pea Edwards made his fortune in legal maneuverings that forced women to undergo unecessary caesarian sections. From sticking a knife into a woman’s belly to sticking scissors into a baby’s brain is but a small step for this charming fellow.
The Democrat mantra for this procedure is ‘the health of the woman.’ This is a departure from its usual shtick about ‘defending the rights of children.’ Of course, it would be hard to mention the rights of the children in this case. Thus the change in tactics. Sure fooled me!
And just to clarify things, here is an unlucky child who failed to escape the clutches of the Democrat Party.
Let’s call it the Democrats’ own version of ‘no child left behind.’
(Update: More info and links at Gateway Pundit.)