Partial Birth Abortion-Here We Go Again

Cross posted by request from Miss Beth's Victory Dance.



Take a good long look at the picture above. That child was the victim of a partial birth abortion.

Offended? GOOD--those who endorse abortion SHOULD be offended. They should also be ashamed and sick enough to their stomachs at actually seeing the results of that which they advocate they're throwing up for months afterwards and haunted by their nightmares.


How about this one for some nightmares?




Or this one?




Or this?



Too graphic you say? I shouldn't show things like this? I shouldn't show the effects of infanticide because it might offend the liberals who advocate infanticide? The same liberals who go after a child dressed in a soldier's uniform for Halloween in honor of his soldier father and is beaten to a pulp by his classmates while the classmate's mothers' stand by? The same liberals who post in the comment thread the child honoring his father should have been killed (the child was about 10)? The same liberals who want to give our 11 year old daughters birth control pills at school without a parent's permission? The same liberals who think it's a good idea to let underage girls have abortions without parental permission? The same liberals who think the Folsom Sex Fest is wholesome and not a slap to decent people, not a slap to Christianity and take their children to see it? THOSE LIBERALS? I MIGHT OFFEND THOSE LIBERALS?

TOUGH SHIT.

I have absolutely no sympathy for them--NONE.

The following came to me in my email from the American Center for Law and Justice.

Dear [Redacted], It would be understandable if you felt cheated, frustrated, or even angry. After all our efforts to see the horror of partial-birth abortion officially banned in this country ... After Congress voted to ban it, the President signed the bill into law, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld that law ... Even after all this, within minutes of that Court ruling, pro-abortion members of Congress introduced a bill which would totally thwart the will of the people - reversing the decision of Congress and the President and undoing the ruling of the Supreme Court. Give your immediate online gift of support and stand with the ACLJ right now to turn back this challenge to the federal ban on partial-birth abortion! These members of Congress have put some ''spin'' on their bill: they call it the ''Freedom of Choice'' Act - but it's not really about freedom of choice. It's actually a slap in the face to the American people ... it's a tip of the hat to the abortion doctors and their lobbyists ... and it's a very real threat against the lives of unborn babies. Support for this bill flooded in from the entire abortion lobby -- the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, N.O.W., NARAL: Pro-Choice America, and others. Which means millions of dollars will almost certainly flow into the campaign for this legislation. The ACLJ truly needs the generous support of members like you today to mount an aggressive counter-offense, or all our vital efforts in support of the unborn will have been in vain. Senators Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer, and others have introduced this bill (H.R. 1964 and S. 1173) in one of the most brazen political moves we've seen in years - but it is also extremely dangerous, because if passed, it would enshrine abortion into law. [Emphasis mine] In order to stop this tidal wave, we absolutely must take VERY aggressive action through our Washington, D.C., office. I have set in motion several lawyers and a senior research team. We are dealing with members of both the House and the Senate. We can't simply work to prevent passage; we must also prepare to litigate in case the bill does become law. I assure you, we will fight every step of the way. But we need your help. Right now, the ACLJ is carrying an enormous workload on top of this issue, and as a result, we urgently need a generous online tax-deductible contribution from you today. We are returning to the Supreme Court of the United States with not one but two simultaneous cases in which public displays of the Ten Commandments are under fire. The work required for these twin cases is of MONUMENTAL proportion. It's a massive number of work-hours - and you can see why we really need your support now in this current fight for life. Here's the bottom line: your personal part in this effort is vitally important. Please let us hear from you right away. Thank you.

And so goes the slippery slope into socialistic thought. Rid yourself of those you don't want and find a way to justify it.

Then, find a way to legislate who is allowed and who isn't allowed to bear children. Those not allowed will have their children aborted and will find themselves sterilized. Like the eugenics project of Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood). Like China with their one child per family law.

Where does the slippery slope end? How long before euthansia is justified? How soon before we become like the Netherlands that allow infanticide AFTER the child is born because the parents may not like the child--for WHATEVER reason, wrong eye color, wrong hair color, wrong sex--how long?

Below is the summary of the Freedom of Choice act from the ACLJ website:

The Freedom of Choice Act

While the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 in Gonzales v. Carhart, abortion supporters in Congress have acted quickly to counteract the decision. Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Jerrold Nadler have introduced a bill, called the Freedom of Choice Act, that would dramatically expand federal protection of abortion rights beyond what is required by Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The bill would invalidate many federal, state and local abortion laws, including the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

The Freedom of Choice Act would create an absolute right to abortion that would override any federal, state or local law that simply "interfered with" that right, no matter how compelling the justification for the law. For instance, the Freedom of Choice Act would likely invalidate the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act even though the statute is constitutional. The findings section of the Freedom of Choice Act states that Congress’s decision in the partial-birth abortion case "permits the government to interfere with the woman’s right to choose to terminate pregnancy . . . ." Since the Freedom of Choice Act would invalidate any federal, state or local law that interferes "with a woman’s right to choose . . . to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability," federal and state partial-birth abortion bans would likely be invalidated.

This attempt to not only reverse the Supreme Court decision but to expand the right to abortion must be dealt with aggressively. Our Government Affairs staff is already working on congressional efforts to defeat this bill. I have assembled a legal team that is already reviewing possible legal challenges if this bill were to actually be passed. While I am not surprised by this move, I am very concerned. We must work aggressively to protect the most vulnerable among us. We have prepared a special video presentation on the Freedom of Choice Act. Click here if you’d like to view it.

Take a good look at the sponsors: Barbara Boxer and Jerrold Nadler. Look who supports it: Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer.

Put a stop to this atrocity--don't let any more children die from this sanctioned infanticide.

My previous posts on abortion:

My Pet Rant of All Time-Abortion
Thank You Supreme Court 9--Or At Least the 5 of You With Morals
THIS Is Partial Birth Abortion
The State of Nevada v. Darryl O. Clark, NDOC Prisoner ID 24347