*Partial-Birth Abortions shown Increasing*

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by LadyEagle, Jan 14, 2003.

  1. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    The rest of the article:
    http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030114-75792581.htm

    To jog our memories, this is the Bill--to Ban Partial Birth Abortions, which had previously passed both the House & the Senate but was vetoed by then President Bill Clinton! :mad:
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The legality of partial birth abortions was not changed by the bill you mentioned. Also worth mentioning is that the bill failed to be approved by Congress after the presidential veto.

    If I remember correctly, the only reason Pres Clinton vetoed the bill was because, while the bill made an exception for the life and safety of the mother, the ban did not include an exception for irreperable and permanent disfigurement of the mother. (other abortion limitation generally include such exceptions). Had that phrase been included, the bill would not have been vetoed by Pres Clinton.

    I'm curious if a new version of the bill includes such an exception. If it does and the bill passes, will Republicans take credit for it, or will Democrats?

    If elected president, I promise to abolish lawyers and political parties as my first act.

    [ January 14, 2003, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
     
  3. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Johnv, here's info from the Senate web site, which contradicts your statement (perhaps you are thinking of some other bill???):

    http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/PARBLN.704.htm

    Unfortunately, it was only the Senate (led by Dem. Tom Daschle) which failed to get the number of votes to override Clinton's veto. The House did their job to protect the lives of the unborn from this cruel barbaric procedure...they had more than enough votes to override Clinton's veto.
     
  4. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    One thing that has been bothering me about the partial birth abortion ban is that I fear it will be used politically: "there, we gave you the PBA ban, vote for us". A way to get votes without doing anything about the majority of the problem. Now I ran across this:

    "The latest news coming from Washington is that partial birth abortion "WILL BE OUTLAWED". As one who has for the last 13 years stood on the front lines in the battle for children's lives, I say, "BIG DEAL". We are a pathetic lot when we get excited over the banning of one form of execution as opposed to another. The banning of partial birth abortion will not save a single life. Not one! Large donor based "pro-life" organizations raise enormous sums of money over this non-issue because it is an easy sell to their gullible Christian donors.

    Let me explain. The Church has by and large prostituted itself to anyone in public office who speaks the worn out words, "I'm pro-life." Whether or not the politician's life bears witness to this or not isn't the issue. The magic words have been spoken and the Christian community has been taken under his spell. When the magic words are spoken the brain becomes numb, thought processes become sluggish, and anger rises in the breast if anyone questions the magician's integrity. But then again, why should we expect it to be otherwise, the magic words have been uttered...

    ...The method of execution isn't the issue. The death of the baby is. When PBA is outlawed the same babies will still die by other standard procedures that have been and continue to be employed. The same child will die a death no less painful at the same stage of development. So what are we so excited about. After hearing the latest news from Washington, many in the Christian community are acting like a child who has been given a lifetime supply of chocolate. All giddy and excited, when the only true victory is held by those politicians who have once again pulled the wool over the eyes of their Christian supporters who are obviously "under the spell."

    From: http://covenantnews.com/letters.htm
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not sure what statement of mine is in error. The bill failed to be approved by Congress after the presidential veto. Had the language I mentioned been included, the bill would not have been vetoed. If the language in question is included in the next bill, and the bill is approved, then I wonder which political party will take credit for it. Most likely, in politically beurcratic fashion, both will take credit for passage, and blame the other for the previous bills' failure.
     
  6. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The banning of partial birth abortion will not save a single life. Not one! Large donor based "pro-life" organizations raise enormous sums of money over this non-issue because it is an easy sell to their gullible Christian donors.

    I happen to agree. In my opinion, it is simply a bandwagon that is used by Christian lobbyists to flex some political muscle at the expense of other more important issues.
     

Share This Page

Loading...