November 05, 2003
Opponents take aim at abortion bill
No more than one hour after President Bush signed a much-needed bill banning partial-birth abortions, opponents of the bill are already challenging it. A district judge even went so far as to issue a temporary restraining order on the ban.
“U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf issued a temporary restraining order citing concerns that the law did not contain an exception for preserserving [sic] the health of the woman seeking the abortion,” The Guardian said Wednesday. “He said his order would apply only to the four doctors who filed the lawsuit in Nebraska.”
However, the bill “includes an exception to protect the mother’s life” BPNews reported earlier today. “It also declares in its findings that the method [partial-birth abortion] is neither safe for women nor necessary to preserve their health.”
Opponents will use anything to get around this one, even if it includes a little fibbing.
Posted by Deleted Author at November 5, 2003 05:08 PMStrange, all of the news reports I have heard and all the news account I have read, have stated that the bill—now law—makes no exception for the mothers health, and that based on that, the law is unconstitutional on its face. Judge Kopf issued his restraining order based on the omission; where did BP get its information?
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at November 6, 2003 01:08 PMKeep it up and beating Bush will be easier, as he is proving to be as anti-women as he is anti-GLBT and anti-minority. Oh, and anti-labor, anti-military and anti-common sense.
Fibbing? Is that what LYING is called these days by the party of the liars?
Posted by: Jonesy at November 7, 2003 12:40 PMThis entire argument makes me sick to my stomach. I would love for ANYONE to PLEASE tell me how banning partial birth abortion is a bad thing. I consider myself a conservative, but I have no problem with a woman’s right to choose at around six weeks. The baby is just a clump of unspecialized cells at that point anyway, but I don’t think ANYONE who supports partial-birth abortion knows what partial-birth abortion really is:
A doctor births the baby to the neck so that all that remains in the birth canal is the head. This so that in case the baby starts breathing all that will be there for it is blood and mucus. You have to realize that everything on a baby at 24 weeks (PBA Age) looks like a human. They have eyelashes and toenails and all the organs and fingers and toes. With the head almost out, the doctor uses a special tool that stabs the baby in the back of the head and then he swishes it back and forth to scramble its brains and kill it while it twitches and spasms in the doctor’s hands.
I challenge ANYONE, especially you liberals who dare to call opposing PBA “ANTI-WOMAN” to explain to me how you can be OK with this procedure. It is a documented fact that 24-week old premies are birthed by ceserean all the time and though many of them have asthma and other respiratory problems later in life, THEY SURVIVE and THRIVE. The worst that would happen to the woman is a small 2.5 inch incision on the panty line to birth the baby.
I reiterate, it turns my stomach to think that our great nation is full of people who are OK with this being done to little people. Not little clusters of cells, or embryos, or even zygotes, but little people with heartbeats and personalities.
Please remind me how I am Anti-Woman again? And V., find me one, JUST ONE, case where killing the fetus after 24-weeks is better for the mothers health than just taking the baby via ceserean. Please do me that with all your tremendous talents of research, find me just one. I submit, that it is a late changing of minds 99% of the time, and PBA is a shirking of parental responsibilities in a ever downward spiraling society where narcissism and self-interest rule all. It isn’t abortion, it’s murder.
Posted by: Yukon Jake at November 8, 2003 02:40 AM
