Bush sells anti-abortion advocates up the river

So, did the GOP use such tactics the other times they knew Clinton would veto such a bill?

Actually, pro-aborton lawyers might fight it legally before Bush gets a chance to sign it to avoid putting doctors in "legal limbo".

If you look at the numbers, it doesn't seem to fall on party lines alone.

The Senate vote, 64-34, came just three weeks after House passed the bill by a 281-142 margin.

Even the late Senator Moynihan (D-NY) claimed it was wrong.

In voting to ban partial-birth abortion, he pointed out that the procedure was actually closer to infanticide...

http://www.politicalusa.com/columnists/antle/antle_021.htm

 

My word!!

Does anyone think the Bush adminstrations, with it "moronic" leader, is THIS clever??

That they actually think about issues from a "means to an end perspective?"

Tsk Tsk Tsk.

 

Yes, that's exactly what they did. They passed the bill knowing Clinton would veto, so they could demonize him as not only pro-abortion, but so fervently pro-abortion that he even opposed banning this horrific procedure.

If they had included in that legislation a exception for the mother's health, vetoing would have put Clitnon in a nearly untenable position politically. If they really wanted their law, they'd write a law that would stand.

 

I wonder how Planned Parenthood and NARAL donations are doing today. The last thing the GOP wants is for this non-issue to become a law.

 

Actually, if they wanted a law that would stand, adding "mother's health" language would not be sufficient - at least, not if the Federal law is similar to the Nebraska law that the Supreme Court addressed in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000). I have yet to look at the text of the statute enacted by Congress, but to meet Constitutional muster of the current court, the statute would also have to reasonably distinguish the so-called "partial birth abortion" or dilation and extraction method (D&X) versus the dilation and evacuation method (D&E), which is the most common method for second trimester abortions.

In any event, I would challenge any abortion supporter to read the description of these methods contained in Steven Breyer's majority opinion in Stenberg v. Carhart and not be just a little repulsed at the action they are supporting.

 

Done, and done.

I'm in favor of second-term procedures that protect the health of the mother. Unless you think that second-term health problems won't become third term problems, and jeopardize the life of both mother and baby. But I'm sure Irish Catholic politicians know better than doctors as to what constitutes a safe medical procedure.

These forms of abortion aren't birth control, you geniuses. These are medical procedures - they're not done for fun. I wouldn't care to watch it, and I would hope no one I know has to go through with it. Just like prostate surgery or radiation therapy. Doesn't mean those should be banned.

The dishonesty in the term "partial birth" is even worse than the term "death tax." Second-term fetuses aren't usually on their way to delivery. They want people to think that this is a procedure done in the 37th week or something, but anyone informed on the matter would know that isn't the case.

A bunch of Democrats voted for this piece of *#*#*#*# legislation, by the way, including guys like Tom Daschle.

 

'partial birth abortions' are a tiny percentage of abortions yearly.

http://www.rtl.org/html/Abortion/partial_birth_abort_ed.html

while there are over a million done a year

http://www.mcjonline.com/news/00/20000111c.htm

the law is just uninformed out to appear to show compassion against abortion. less than 1% are 'partial birth'

it is dangerous in trying to set a precedent to limit the legality of abortion tho

 

But, what number of these abortions were done to "save the life" of the mother and not just delayed birth control?

 

That's the only question I have as well.

 

Zero. You wouldn't use this procedure as birth control. The number of "birth control" abortions after the first trimester put together is a tiny enough percentage, anyway.

In any case, let's pretend that, say, 99 out of 100 partial birth abortions were done for fun. You've really screwed over woman number 100, haven't you? The most common use of partial birth procedure is for hydrocephaly. Long story short, in banning this procedure, you've made the mother carry a doomed child anyway, then made her go through a c-section in term three to finally go through with the inevitable. In order to appease a bunch of Bible-thumping creationist yahoos. Great work.

 

You're going to get a very strong arguement from right to lifers if even just one is performed as a form of birth control.

However, I tend to agree with you. I would like to think that anyone irrisponsible enough to get knocked up in the first place would get an abortion prior to the 2nd trimester. Atleast, that's my hope.

Still, this has to be one of the most gruesome procedures I have ever heard of. It's my hope that most doctors would flat out refuse to perform it unless the mother was in immidiate danger.

And Dan, there's a lot of non-bible-thumping creationist yahoos out there that are prolife.

 

Of course, this is all moot anyway, since it will never survive judicial scrutiny.

In fact, from one perspective, you can argue that this is a pure desperation act on the part of right-to-lifers. So much time and money, so few "victories" for their side.

This one will collapse too.

 

The only thing I can discern from this paragraph as truth is that YOU REALLY SCREWED OVER 100 BABIES!!!!

 

dawgpound, here's what your state says about it:

CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
SECTION 123468

The performance of an abortion is unauthorized if either of the following is true:
(a) The person performing or assisting in performing the abortionis not a health care provider authorized to perform or assist in performing an abortion pursuant to Section 2253 of the Business andProfessions Code.
(b) The abortion is performed on a viable fetus, and both of the following are established:
(1) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician, the fetus was viable.
(2) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician,continuation of the pregnancy posed no risk to life or health of the pregnant woman.

Is there anything inadequate about this law which necessitates the federal "partial-birth" legislation?

 

Yeah - it doesn't ban all abortion. Duh.

 

Course we could not ban the procedure and make all of the pinko death-loving commie libs happy.


See how stupid you look?