Supreme Court upholds PBA ban

[red states rule]

I find it very hypocritical that the people who argue that Roe v Wade should be overturned because abortion should be a State's right, would welcome a federal ban on partial-birth abortions. A federal ban on anything takes away from State's rights. That's not federalism, that's an anti-abortion position masquerading as federalism- very contradictive.

The state has no right to murder a neraly full born baby

It is a horrible way to kill the baby

 

[Annie]

The state has no right to murder a neraly full born baby

It is a horrible way to kill the baby

Sorry, but is there a 'less horrible way' to kill a baby? Seriously, the very fact that most of the 5k are healthy babies of healthy mothers make it infanticide. If the mother hits wanting abortion so late in the process, it's wrong. Put it up for adoption, they are going through all of the pain of delivery, then the doctor is killing the baby. Wrong.

Good ruling.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Actually, it if the state legislature decided to ban chinese food it could mean you can be arrested for eating it. It would be an incredibly stupid use of government power, but it would be perfectly legitimate for the state to do so, theoretically. After all if it was constitutional to do so, then why would the libs be trying so hard to ban fast food? I think it would be a stupid and bad law, but that wouldnt make it unconstitutional.

I would again direct you to Amendment IX.

 

[GeeWhiz]

Sorry, but is there a 'less horrible way' to kill a baby?

The Republican controlled leglislative branch banning a procedure was a knee jerk reaction to the Stenberg ruling.

The Act clearly states this: to bad maam you have to die because we have to gather votes as a commodity by pandering to a bunch of small fundalmentalist religious wack job.

 

[William Joyce]

I find it very hypocritical that the people who argue that Roe v Wade should be overturned because abortion should be a State's right, would welcome a federal ban on partial-birth abortions. A federal ban on anything takes away from State's rights. That's not federalism, that's an anti-abortion position masquerading as federalism- very contradictive.

Hypocritical, but what are abortion opponents supposed to do? Make no mistake, the Founders NEVER would have wanted issues like birth control, abortion, homosexuality, etc. to be federal issues, but liberals have seen to it that they are. So, if you care about those issues, you have to make your appeal at the federal level. If you want to blame anyone for federalizing an issue that shouldn't be federalized, blame the liberals.

 

[GeeWhiz]

Hypocritical, but what are abortion opponents supposed to do? Make no mistake, the Founders NEVER would have wanted issues like birth control, abortion, homosexuality, etc. to be federal issues, but liberals have seen to it that they are. So, if you care about those issues, you have to make your appeal at the federal level. If you want to blame anyone for federalizing an issue that shouldn't be federalized, blame the liberals.

Did you see my post above?

The procedure was ruled by the United States Supreme Court as legal in the Stenberg case. The Stenberg case was centered around the constitutionality of a state law which banned the procedure. The Republican controlled legislative branch didn't like the ruling making the procedure legal so they went and took the Nebraska law and federalized it. Bush then stacked the court with nutballs all of them right wingers. The Conservative Court then upheld the ban on the procedure. None of this federalizing is from the liberals as you claim. It is all from a group of vote whores.

You know what a vote whore is? A vote whore is politician that will do anything for a vote including passing a bill that will put a doctor in prison if he so much as tries to save the life of a woman. The vote whore got the vote of the mean spirited Christians and the woman got pushed back into the back alleys.

It's all politics. Has nothing to do with anyones life and safety.

 

[JeffWartman]

I find it very hypocritical that the people who argue that Roe v Wade should be overturned because abortion should be a State's right, would welcome a federal ban on partial-birth abortions. A federal ban on anything takes away from State's rights. That's not federalism, that's an anti-abortion position masquerading as federalism- very contradictive.

Very interesting perspective, I haven't heard that before.

I am pretty pro-life personally, but I do believe it's a state's rights issue. I do not agree with a nation wide ban because of that issue being a state right, even with my strong personal pro-life beliefs.

 

[Annie]

Did you see my post above?

The procedure was ruled by the United States Supreme Court as legal in the Stenberg case. The Stenberg case was centered around the constitutionality of a state law which banned the procedure. The Republican controlled legislative branch didn't like the ruling making the procedure legal so they went and took the Nebraska law and federalized it. Bush then stacked the court with nutballs all of them right wingers. The Conservative Court then upheld the ban on the procedure. None of this federalizing is from the liberals as you claim. It is all from a group of vote whores.

You know what a vote whore is? A vote whore is politician that will do anything for a vote including passing a bill that will put a doctor in prison if he so much as tries to save the life of a woman. The vote whore got the vote of the mean spirited Christians and the woman got pushed back into the back alleys.

It's all politics. Has nothing to do with anyones life and safety.

Stacked? How? He appointed 2 to openings. Confirmed by Senate. Didn't try to up the number of judicial appointments. Loser.

 

[William Joyce]

The Stenberg case was centered around the constitutionality of a state law which banned the procedure. The Republican controlled legislative branch didn't like the ruling making the procedure legal so they went and took the Nebraska law and federalized it.

Roe v. Wade predates this case by a long, long time. Roe, as you probably know, was about a Texas law on abortion. The federal government had previously said nothing about abortion, either legislatively or judicially. It was a blank field. Then one day, the liberals filed a lawsuit in federal court. And thus it began.

I can oppose the federalization of an abortion law, and do, on principle. I wouldn't propose federal legislation dealing with it, pro or anti-.

But arguing that the "right wingers" were the initiators of federalizing abortion is just wrong.

 

[JeffWartman]

Did you see my post above?

The procedure was ruled by the United States Supreme Court as legal in the Stenberg case. The Stenberg case was centered around the constitutionality of a state law which banned the procedure. The Republican controlled legislative branch didn't like the ruling making the procedure legal so they went and took the Nebraska law and federalized it. Bush then stacked the court with nutballs all of them right wingers. The Conservative Court then upheld the ban on the procedure. None of this federalizing is from the liberals as you claim. It is all from a group of vote whores.

You know what a vote whore is? A vote whore is politician that will do anything for a vote including passing a bill that will put a doctor in prison if he so much as tries to save the life of a woman. The vote whore got the vote of the mean spirited Christians and the woman got pushed back into the back alleys.

It's all politics. Has nothing to do with anyones life and safety.

It was your Liberal hero Franklyn Roosevelt who tried to subvert the Constitution and stack the court using dishonest and borderline anti-democratic evil tactics. Bush merely filled vacancies with appointments, which is his Constitutional duty. Get a clue.

 

[GeeWhiz]

Stacked? How? He appointed 2 to openings. Confirmed by Senate. Didn't try to up the number of judicial appointments. Loser.

That's all it takes to stack a court sweetheart. Roberts and Alito are jokes. They know politics honey but when it comes to choosing between the rule of law or their ideology they will trample on the rule of law any given day cutey.

The Conservative are taking the court down the gutter so get over it honey bunch.

 

[Annie]

That's all it takes to stack a court sweetheart. Roberts and Alito are jokes. They know politics honey but when it comes to choosing between the rule of law or their ideology they will trample on the rule of law any given day cutey.

The Conservative are taking the court down the gutter so get over it sweet cheese cake.

So now you wish to take away the executive privilege to appoint judges to Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of Senate. You call 'conservatives' radicals? Loser.

 

[GeeWhiz]

So now you wish to take away the executive privilege to appoint judges to Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of Senate. You call 'conservatives' radicals? Loser.

I call 'conservatives' cold blooded reptiles. Conservative mentality discovers its idea only ex post facto. Conservative would rather stay in a zombie mode and really do not like it when their ideology is questioned. It hurts their brain and makes them scramble for old grandpapa sayings from days of old aka tradition darling.

Faith, myths and superstition must not be challenged am I right about that monkey nipples?

 

[William Joyce]

That's all it takes to stack a court sweetheart. Roberts and Alito are jokes. They know politics honey but when it comes to choosing between the rule of law or their ideology they will trample on the rule of law any given day cutey.

The Conservative are taking the court down the gutter so get over it honey bunch.

John Roberts is actually one of the better things to come out of the Bush administration. He's so peerless that the socialist press you love and obey couldn't find a shred on him.

As far as choosing ideology over the rule of law, conservatives are the clear winners. The Anglo-American tradition of common law and legislative supremacy mean that judges apply, rather than make, law. You'll have trouble coming up with any examples of conservative judges doing this. One liberal law professor suggested that Scalia's interpretation of the takings clause might be considered "activist," but that's grasping.

Liberals, meanwhile, make law with every ruling.

 

[Annie]

I call 'conservatives' cold blooded reptiles. Conservative mentality discovers its idea only ex post facto. Conservative would rather stay in a zombie mode and really do not like it when their ideology is questioned. It hurts their brain and makes them scramble for old grandpapa sayings from days of old aka tradition darling.

Faith, myths and superstition must not be challenged am I right about that monkey nipples?

You are not worth my spit, if on fire.

 

[Bern80]

I call 'conservatives' cold blooded reptiles. Conservative mentality discovers its idea only ex post facto. Conservative would rather stay in a zombie mode and really do not like it when their ideology is questioned. It hurts their brain and makes them scramble for old grandpapa sayings from days of old aka tradition darling.

Faith, myths and superstition must not be challenged am I right about that monkey nipples?

And when was the last swayed from one belief to another Mr. open-minded?

 

[GeeWhiz]

You are not worth my spit, if on fire.

Jesus was a radical guy. He said, "Love thy enemies." So where is all that love?

Even if you don't want to love me I love you because Jesus told me to.

There was a time when religion ruled the world. It was called the Dark Ages.

 

[Annie]

Jesus was a radical guy. He said, "Love thy enemies." So where is all that love?

Even if you don't want to love me I love you because Jesus told me to.

There was a time when religion ruled the world. It was called the Dark Ages.

ahem, when did I bring up religion? Now you wish to go there from the SCOTUS ruling, on what grounds? I'm far from religious right.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Gee Whiz: You say "conservatives are synonymous with the culture of death"? That " woman got pushed back into the back alleys"? Tell me exactly how many women will die from not getting a partial birth abortion? Then compare that figure to how many babies have already died from them. Stop drinking the liberal koolaid.

You want to really talk "back alleys"? How about we talk about the "back alley" market for baby body parts? How about innocent healthy babies getting their heads chopped open, their brains sucked out, babies that die screaming in pain, only to wind up sliced and diced and then sold on the underworld black market trafficking in body parts and fetal tissue. This is the real "back alley" activity of the liberal abortion business. It's how abortion centers make their blood money. Call it their profit center. This is liberalism at its true core and this atrocity must be stopped.

Example of a baby parts order:

Quote taken directly from order by researcher with tissue harvesting company:

"Whole intact leg, include entire hip joint. 22- to 24-weeks gestation. Sterile. Age of fetus must be determined and noted. Indicate foot pad measurement. 4-6 specimens per shipment. Preparation: Wet ice. Procedure: To be removed from fetal cadaver within 10 minutes. Shipping: Ship on wet ice. Next day. No abnormalities. Date: 3/95"-Order placed by a medical school [name withheld].

SOURCE: Life Dynamics, Inc.
(See "Quick Links" Icon for information on Life Dynamics, Inc.)
http://babypartstrafficking.org/index.html

Planned Parenthood called the decision “a dark day for women’s health and safety.” I call it a "blazing light-filled day for helpless innocent children and humanity at large".

This was a ruling that came down on the side of life, NOT death. Of course you think the "mean spirited Christians" are the ones at fault for this ruling. Myself, I'm mightily glad for Christians, especially Catholics, who support the sanctity of life and know where to draw the line.

I find it interesting that the liberal commie feminist witch on the Court had a fit about the ruling. Even though judges are not supposed to have an agenda, that made it obvious she HAS an agenda and it was thwarted. She just got a taste of what's coming…

 

[acludem]

First, as to where the right of abortion is contained in the Constitution, it's part of the Constitution's guarantee of privacy, which I contend is contained in the fourth amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

It's right there, you strict constructionists should learn to read it...it says plainly that the government can't invade your privacy without specific cause.

Second this decision is proof that the right-wing court majority isn't interested in protecting the Constitution, they are interested in eliminating the Bill of Rights from it.

acludem