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.)
19 Comments;
Scipio, I still have not found where, in the constitution, does it say that women have the right to abort a child. In addition, this “Partial Birth Abortion” is nothing more than outright MURDER! Excuse me, but abortion is NOT another means of birth control. There are numerous ways and means of birth control, why on earth would anyone MURDER a child because it was “inconvenient” for the woman. (I know I am going to get hammered for my remarks, but WTH). Conception BEGINS at inception. Period. END OF STORY! Abortion is murder. Especially Partial Birth Abortion.
Pothus
Scipio: A small correction. I know you’re quoting a source but one that is in obvious error. Partial birth abortion does not usually take place at the end of the second trimester of pregnacy. It takes place at parturition – the end of the third trimester. That’s why the health of the woman is a straw man. Giving birth is not a disease.
Dear Pothus: Liberals love to stretch the Constitution so that it means whatever they wish it to be—except where guns are concerned, of course. Then these clever sorts are ultra-strict constructionists. A liberal aborts because it is spitting in the face of God. It says to God that the liberal can destroy His most precious creation, another human being.
Dear Sven: You are right. I should have spotted it. Nice phrase about ‘giving birth is not a disease.’ From the shrieks of the National Organization of (Lonely, Empty Wombed and Lesbian) Women you would think it was worse than AIDS and that children were a pox upon mankind.
I’ve drawn heat from libertarians for being pro-life. But, the way I see it, if you deny a person life what good are the other rights?
Dear Barry: Agreed. I am libertarian whenever I can be to the limits of my Catholic faith—which must trump all else. But some of the moral—or rather, amoral—libertarian prescriptions for society are suicidal or just plain silly. They remind me of the ‘let it all hang out’ mentality of the late 60s.
I’m a libertarian, however, I in no way endorse partial birth abortion, nor do any libertarian do I know.
Dear Giancarlo: Is there an ‘official position’ on abortion for libertarians? Or are individuals allowed to pick and choose from a menu of libertarian solutions to the ills of society? This is what I do to the extent that I can and still belong to the Catholic Church. Catholicism is a ‘my way or the highway’ faith. Either one believes all of it or one needs to find another faith. Works for me.
What is up with Giuliani losing some support? Is it because of Fred Thompson being seen as joining the race?
And I can not put my cat into the microwave to see how it jumps because I’ll go to jail!
There is no official position because there are variants of libertarians. There is no pick and choose in my set of beliefs. I am a libertarian, and that is what I am. I don’t pick and choose.
Giuliani is losing some minor support, but he is still going to win.
I’m a bit insulted by being accused of being a pick and choose person.
And I think the best for this country is Rudy, and not Fred Thompson. I mean if the republicans don’t try to cater the center they will lose 2008, and who knows… we could end up with Hillary.
Dear Cogito Argentum: And just what do you think would happen if you stepped upon some random snail darter? Or found yourself imposing upon a wetland? Alas, the entire power of the federal government would visit itself upon your head. This is madness.
Dear Giancarlo: No insult was implied and none should be inferred. I asked a question about libertarianism in general, not about any libertarian. I simply want to know more about it from one who actually is one.
The last landslides the Republicans won were with Reagan. He did not cater to the center at all. He did in fact the opposite. It was the center that catered to him. As it will cater to Thompson.
I am not at all saying anything about Rudy. I am telling you something about us conservatives, a group of which I have been a member for 30 years.
Times change. The country changes. This was not the country that is angry at Carter in 1979. This is a country that is angry at Bush. Some things I have to admit. There needs to be a candidate who will not polarize and caters towards the center more than any other. If this is not done, then a democrat will certainly win this race. That’s something that is starting to concern me greatly.
I consider myself a center-of-right libertarian who has some socially centrist views. I’m widely pro-Adam Smith when it comes to the economy. I’m also more open when it comes to certain social issues (with the exception of abortion).
I apologize for reacting abrasively.
Dear Giancarlo: You were not abrasive, but you were forceful in defense. No problem here with that.
Times change but human nature does not. It is a certain way and has been for 6000 years. Humans are conservative by nature, thus the abject failure of liberalism in its manifest and grotesque forms—communism, humanism, socialism. All of these ‘isms have been ideologies that went directly against human nature, and thus they failed. Such foolishness is like putting water into an automobile and expecting it to go.
The country angry at Bush? Well, the foppish classes are. The media are as well—but pardon my redundancy. The nation was angry at Carter in 1979 because of Iran—and such anger is still around and will be until the mullahs are killed.
A centrist cannot win against Hillary. Why would any such vote for Rudy when he can vote for Hillary? The Republic cries out for conservative leadership. All centrist Republicans since Reagan have either lost or have come so close to losing that even the victory was an embarrassment.
Conservative Republicans win. And even if liberal Republicans win—Bush 1988—they lose the next time and thus guarantee a Democrat victory—Clinton in 1992 and 1996. My God, was that ever embarrassing!
A centrist can and would win against Hillary. I know Rudy would most certainly win against Hillary because Rudy provides a true leadership quality that is lacking in other candidates. We need strong leadership, and I believe that is in Rudy and only Rudy. The problem I see with other candidates are there high unfavorable ratings (including Brownback and Romney who have very high unfavorable ratings).
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/2008PresidentialMatchups.htm
There needs to be more centrists in this country, and I believe people are naturally moderate.
Dear Giancarlo: If Fred Thompson enters the race all calculations are off!
Remember there is still a lot of time and I think Rudy has what it takes. He just has that 9/11 hero image that resonates in the minds of many, including conservatives.
Dear Giancarlo: I know conservatives. I am one. I read what other conservatives write day to day. I listen to their radio shows. I read their books. They—we—are very squeamish about Rudy for all sorts of reasons. They—we—prefer someone else. Someone, like Fred Thompson. If Thompson gets in Rudy will vanish.
And if Rudy does get the nomination every conservative will back him 100 per cent.