The only group not supporting the ban, other than the clinic operators who are making money on it, are the hyper radical feminist Moloch worshiping death-cultists.
Clarice Feldman posts a quote from the blog Red State on The American Thinker reminding us of the second reason.
Red State comments:
The Supreme Court's partial birth abortion opinion rejects a facial challenge to the statute but leaves open the possibility of challenges in the future by particular mothers who claim a health necessity for such an abortion.
It's important to remember that this bill was a bipartisan effort with a House vote of 281-142 and a Senate vote of 64-34. Specifically, these Democratic Senators were supporters of banning the unpopular Partial-Birth Abortion Procedure: Sen. Minority Leader Daschle and Sens. Biden, Lincoln, Pryor, Miller, Breaux, Landrieu, Conrad, Dorgan, Nelson, current Sen. Majority Leader Reid, Hollings, Johnson, Leahy, Byrd, Nelson (NE). John Edwards, fittingly enough, didn't show up for the vote.
The list of Democratic House supporters is longer, and includes famous names such as John Murtha, John Dingell, Patrick Kennedy, Ted Strickland, James Clyburn, Harold Ford, and David Obey. Remember those lists if anyone tries to tell you that this is all about outside-the-mainstream right-wingers.
Too many Democrats voted for the law banning the procedure. If the Democrat candidates try to make an issue of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the law it would put too many Democrats (some of them very prominent) in the crosshairs.
Not to mention all the Democrats who were elected this past November who ran as pro-life conservatives, like North Carolina's Heath Schuler. It is going to be hard enough for the Democrat Party to explain away Hillary Clinton's unreformed Marxism. They are not going to be saddled with attempting to explain why delivering a perfectly formed, healthy and totally viable baby all but the head and then sticking scissors into his/her skull to make a hole then sticking a vacuum hose onto its cranium and sucking out its brains is something that the Democrat Party needs to make a signature issue.
There is an unsigned editorial in today's Washington Post in which the writer attempts to cast the procedure as a medical necessisity:
But the 5 to 4 ruling, whose result is most easily explained by a change in the court's membership since it overturned a similar statute seven years ago, will certainly prevent some women from choosing the abortion procedure that their doctors believe would be safest in their individual cases.
[. . .]
Tell that to a woman whose doctor believes that performing the partial-birth procedure would provide a better chance of allowing her to bear children in the future.
What the editorial writer misses, no what the editorial writer deliberatly attempts to obscure, is that the partial birth abortion procedure is only performed on a late term (eight or ninth month for those of you in Rio Linda) infant. If the mother's life or health is threatened by carrying the baby for the extra four to six weeks then why not, after the doctor has delievered the baby all but the head, go ahead and withdraw the head from the birth cannal and let the child live?
You see the point of the procedure is not to save the mother it is to kill the child. Let me repeat. This is not a medical procedure whose purpose is to protect the mothers life or health. It is an aboriton whose sole purpose is to end the life of a child which has reached the state of development which allows it to live outside the womb.
Remember this when you hear that "Christian fundamentalists" have launched an attack on women. That "attack" was a bipartisan act of congress, supported by a very large majority of the American people, to close a loophole in the law which allowed the legalized murder of fully viable infants.
No comments:
Post a Comment