Supreme Court upholds PBA ban

[red states rule]

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?

Partial-birth hypocrisy
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
April 20, 2007


To say the least, the subject of partial-birth abortion does not inspire the courage of conviction in Democrats. As readers listen to the strident condemnations of this week's Supreme Court ruling from the likes of Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, keep in mind that these pro-choice lawmakers could begin trying to repeal the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 tomorrow if they were serious. They control Congress, and the Supreme Court has just deferred to Congress on the issue. But solid majorities of Americans rightly regard partial-birth abortion as barbaric. So, these Democrats, wedged between public revulsion and the hard-left abortion lobby, instead point fingers at the Supreme Court.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the most egregious offender. Along with 15 other Senate Democrats, he actually voted for the bipartisan ban, which passed by a 64-34 margin. But he now presumes to disapprove of this week's ruling. "I would only say that this is the only decision a lot of us wish that [Justice Samuel] Alito weren't there and O'Connor were there," he said. Let us hope Mr. Reid is simply making this up to please EMILY's List or some other abortion-rights group. Otherwise, it would mean that three-and-a-half years ago, he voted for a law whose constitutionality he doubted. Or, maybe the "wish" is simply that Justice Alito hadn't put him in such an awkward position. Either way, "Profiles in Courage" this is not.
Sen. Joseph Biden, Delaware Democrat, is not so hypocritical on the subject. Instead, he's simply hiding. He voted for the ban, too, but is now ducking the phone calls of reporters seeking comment. He looks highly conspicuous. On the other hand, Sen. Patrick Leahy, Vermont Democrat, also voted for the ban, but with a 100-percent pro-choice 2006 rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, he can be all things to all people this week or simply remain quiet. (He's chosen the latter.) Don't forget former Sen. John Edwards, who was one of two absent for the 2003 vote (the other was Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas Republican).
Finally, we return to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, who deserve some credit for being sufficiently hard-left on partial-birth abortion. Their only additional discredit is their wish that the courts hadn't returned this issue to the Senate's doorstep (although Mr. Obama had not yet joined the Senate in 2003).
Republicans are subject to their own political calculations on this issue, but for the most part, hypocrisy is not much involved. Nearly the entire party opposes the gruesomeness of partial-birth abortion, as does the public, and it has acted accordingly. The notable, welcome hypocrite is presidential aspirant and one-time stridently pro-choice Rudy Giuliani, who has been tacking to the right on abortion for months now. He did not disappoint this week when he said that the court "reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial-birth abortion." If not pretty, it is nevertheless a welcome transformation.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070419-083406-3789r.htm

 

[red states rule]

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.

Rosie on Catholic Justices: 'How About Separation of Church and State?'
Posted by Justin McCarthy on April 19, 2007 - 14:37.
On April 19, the ladies of "The View" offered their analysis of the Gonzales v. Carhart decision upholding a federal partial birth abortion ban. Most of the segment was a back and forth between Rosie O’Donnell, who clearly opposed the decision and Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who supported it. Joy Behar and Barbara Walters chimed in occasionally with Behar clearly in the abortion rights camp and Barbara Walters mildly there. Video: Real (1.4 MB) or Windows (1.6 MB); plus MP3 (256 KB)

Rosie expressed horror that there are five Catholics on the Supreme Court and Catholics on the Court apparently violate the "separation of church and state"

O’DONNELL: You know what concerns me? How many Supreme Court judges are Catholic, Barbara?

WALTERS: Five.

O’DONNELL: Five. How about separation of church and state in America?

WALTERS: Every one of them, when they were going through their Senate confirmation hearings said the fact of my religion does not mean that I will vote a particular way because of my religion. So we cannot say that they did it because they’re Catholic. It is interesting that they’re Catholic.

Through the course of the segment, Rosie repeatedly emphasized that partial birth abortions only represent a very small percentage of abortions annually. Elisabeth reminded her that, that is still 2,000 lives lost each year.

Rosie repeatedly played up fears that this is "a way to get in to start eroding Roe v Wade," and it’s "as if the women’s movement never happened." She even quoted Gloria Steinem line, "if men can get pregnant abortion would be a scarament." Rosie also provided this factually flawed analysis.

"The difference is, you know, we are half the population and there was a women's movement and, you know, feminism really was the reason that this bill, women's reproductive rights ever came into the forefront and was entered and was Constitutionally upheld since ‘73."

Roe v. Wade did not uphold any law. In fact, it struck down a Texas law prohibiting abortion. The entire transcript is below.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12157

 

[William Joyce]

Idea:

Any public official who sides with abortion must perform one. And then they may return to their business.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

Dude, I was talking about somebody else's post, not mine. Nevermind.

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.

Abortion isn't a state right now, thanks to Roe v. Wade. You're complaining about federalizing a federalist issue at this point. Every single time pba was put to the voters of a state, it would pass, thenS COTUS would nullify that law until now.

What I find "hypocritical" and inexplicable is the Senate Majority Speaker's votes and statements on this very issue:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was among those who denounced yesterday's Supreme Court ruling upholding the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Act. Commenting on the decision, Reid said "A lot of us wish that Alito weren't there and O'Connor were there," indicating his desire that there has been a fifth vote to invalidate the statute, as Justice O'Connor had provided the fifth vote to invalidate Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in Stenberg v. Carhart.


What is curious about Reid's statement, as NPR and some news outlets have noted, is not Reid's criticism of Alito -- Reid opposed Alito's confirmation -- but the fact that Reid supported, and voted for, the federal statute upheld in yesterday's decision. Reid was one of 17 Senate Democrats voting in favor of the bill in 2003. Reid also voted in favor of a ban on partial-birth abortion in 1999 (see here) and , as indicated in this "Meet the Press" interview, Reid was one of only two Democratic Senators to vote against a resolution reaffirming Senate support for the holding of Roe v. Wade.

http://wizbangblog.com/2007/04/19/r...urt-ruling-upholding-statute-he-voted-for.php

He really doesn't make any more sense with this than Rosie O'Donnell ever does, at least the MSM called him on this flip-flop.

Think Harry Reid was (gasp) politicizing this?

 

[red states rule]

Dude, I was talking about somebody else's post, not mine. Nevermind.



Abortion isn't a state right now, thanks to Roe v. Wade. You're complaining about federalizing a federalist issue at this point. Every single time pba was put to the voters of a state, it would pass, thenS COTUS would nullify that law until now.

What I find "hypocritical" and inexplicable is the Senate Majority Speaker's votes and statements on this very issue:



http://wizbangblog.com/2007/04/19/r...urt-ruling-upholding-statute-he-voted-for.php

He really doesn't make any more sense with this than Rosie O'Donnell ever does, at least the MSM called him on this flip-flop.

Think Harry Reid was (gasp) politicizing this?

Only a liberal would think it is a Constitutional right for a baby that is moments from being born, to bore a hole in an unborn babies head, suck the babies brains out to kill it

 

[actsnoblemartin]

With all due respect to people who support abortion, this kind of abortion is heinous. Taking a baby out of the woman after birth or 8 months, jamming scissors into the back of the babies skull, and then sucking out its brain, its disgusting and should be banned in my humble opinion.

While we're on abortion, I believe each individual state should decide its views on abortion. The supreme court should NOT decide public policy.

I understand, the pro abortion argument, I dont want the government in my bedroom, and i dont want women shoving hanging up their vagina.

 

[red states rule]

With all due respect to people who support abortion, this kind of abortion is heinous. Taking a baby out of the woman after birth or 8 months, jamming scissors into the back of the babies skull, and then sucking out its brain, its disgusting and should be banned in my humble opinion.

While we're on abortion, I believe each individual state should decide its views on abortion. The supreme court should NOT decide public policy.

I understand, the pro abortion argument, I dont want the government in my bedroom, and i dont want women shoving hanging up their vagina.

I do not want unborn babies being murdered