Custom Search

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Killing Living Babies... Who Thinks This is Right?

Open Trackbacks again today!!!!

One of the reasons I used to be a Democrat was I always believed in a womens right to choose. Although personally I found the idea of abortion sickening, I never felt I had the right to force my values on another individual. I always believed the decision shoud have been made within the first three months, before a baby had a heartbeat. In my mind, once that little tiny heart was beating, that baby was alive. Many disagree and that is their right. I can understand people who believe the second a child is conceived they are alive and I can respect their opinion on that. This is not a discussion and abortion or no abortion. THIS post is about late term abortion / partial birth abortion.

I started voting Republican because between the issue of abortion and National Security, I knew the Republicans would keep me safer and national security trumped. Despite the elections, I still thank God Bush is the President and has that handy dandy VETO power.

With that said, I find a particular disgust for the proposition of late term abortions and partial birth abortions. It is murder, no matter how you cut it.

Let me show you what I am talking about here.

The Supreme Court is now hearing arguments once again on this procedure.

This is partial birth abortion.

That is a baby, a living entity.

"Partial-birth" abortion, a procedure so disquieting that even pro-abortion-rights Democrat Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan has described it as "too close to infanticide." Used in pregnancies too advanced to be terminated by suction, the procedure (technically called "intact dilation and extraction," or "D&X") involves bringing the fetus feet-first into the birth canal, puncturing its skull with a sharp instrument, and sucking out its brain tissue through a catheter.

What kind of monster would take a piece of metal and stick it through a baby's brain stem to murder this child? What kind of woman would allow this to happen to her child? What has this world come to where we will criticize North Korea for killing disabled children at birth, yet we will put THIS on our ballots to vote on? Are we too going to become like il-jong? Is THAT going to be our standard? These are serious questions.

The Supreme Court is now hearing arguments on this issue.

Supreme Court justices Wednesday sharply questioned attorneys on both sides of the legal battle over late-term abortions as the high court weighed whether to uphold Congress's ban on the procedure.

In an intense morning of arguments, lawyers for the Bush administration and supporters of abortion rights gave starkly contrasting views the medical procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion. A law passed by Congress labels it a gruesome and inhumane practice. Supporters argue that such late-term abortions sometimes are the safest for women.

A man in the audience began shouting midway through the proceedings, disrupting the hearing briefly before security guards dragged from the premises.

Before that incident, Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens in questioning whether the court should defer to congressional findings that these late-term abortions are never medically necessary. Proponents disagree, saying there is strong medical evidence to the contrary.

"We have no evidence in the record" as to how often such a situation arises? Roberts asked.

"No, your honor," replied attorney Priscilla Smith, arguing on behalf of the supporters of the abortion method being debated in the case.

At issue is the fate of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003.

Six federal courts on both coasts and in the Midwest have struck down the law as an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion that the Supreme Court established in its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973.

A day earlier, abortion was on several state ballots. In South Dakota, voters repealed a state law that virtually outlaws abortions, an issue that itself could end up before the court.

California and Oregon voters rejected measures that would have required that teenagers get their parents' consent before having an abortion.

A long line of people hoping for a seat inside stretched across the court's plaza hours before the session was to begin. Dozens of people camped through a rainy night in Washington to ensure their place near the head of the line.

Partial-birth abortion is not a medical term, but abortion opponents say it accurately describes "a rarely used and gruesome late-term abortion procedure that resembles infanticide," as Solicitor General Paul Clement said in court papers. Clement will argue the case for the administration.

Abortion-rights proponents dispute almost every aspect of the government's case, including the name for the procedure. They say the law has a much broader reach than the government claims and would threaten almost all abortions that take place after the third month of pregnancy.

Doctors most often refer to the procedure as a dilation and extraction or an intact dilation and evacuation abortion. It involves partially extracting a fetus from the uterus, then cutting or crushing its skull.

The procedure appears to take place most often in the middle third of pregnancy. There are a few thousand such abortions, according to rough estimates, out of more than 1.25 million abortions in the United States annually. Ninety percent of all abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not at issue.

By a 5-4 vote, the court invalidated a similar law in Nebraska in 2000 because it encompassed other abortion methods and did not contain an exception that would allow the procedure to preserve a woman's health, an underpinning of Supreme Court abortion rulings.

Two things have changed in the past six years, the composition of the court and Congress' involvement in the issue by tailoring a law to overcome the objections raised by justices in the Nebraska case.

Abortion opponents are optimistic the court will uphold the law because Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, part of the majority in the 2000 case, has retired and her place was taken by Justice Samuel Alito.

Bush appointed both Roberts and Alito, and most legal analysts believe that neither man will be especially supportive of abortion rights.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing voter following O'Connor's departure, dissented so strongly in the Nebraska case that many court observers believe he is unlikely to switch sides.

The congressional ban attempts to define the type of abortion more precisely and also declares that the procedure is never medically necessary, eliminating the need for a health exception.

Planned Parenthood of America and other abortion-rights supporters are hopeful that the court's respect for its own prior rulings and substantial evidence presented at three trials will overcome the administration's contention that Congress' pronouncements on abortion should carry special weight.

As it does in other high-profile cases, the court will release audio tapes of the proceedings shortly after the arguments conclude.

The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.

This is not a pleasant issue, but it is an important one. Again, I am not approaching the issue of abortion in and of itself, I am talking about late term or partial birth abortion.

This should not be allowed. Infantcide should never become "law" and rule of thumb.

What has happened to this world we live in where this is even an issue?

Speak amongst yourselves.

Just as disturbing is THIS from Sma' Talk Wi'T.

Consider this an open trackback. Linkfest Haven.

Conservative Cat.
Third World County.
Stuck on Stupid.
Pirate's Cove.
Right Wing Nation.

Others posting on this issue:
Blogs for Bush.
Sma' Talk' Wi'T.
The Cafeteria is Closed.

More to come.

Tracked back by:
1796: the "peace treaty" with Islam that now needs from Tel-Chai Nation...
British Man Lights Firecracker in Buttocks from The Clash of Civilizations...
Priest For Life Wants Democrats To Prove Conservat from Sma' Talk Wi' T...
Doctors Advocate Murder! from Perri Nelson's Website...