Bush to Sign Partial Birth Abortion Bill

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#1
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031022/D7UBB00G3.html
Bush to Sign Partial Birth Abortion Bill
Oct 22, 12:27 PM (ET)
By JIM ABRAMS

(AP) Sen Rick Santorum, R-Pa., left, listens as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., right,...

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said he would sign newly passed legislation to end the "abhorrent practice" known by critics as partial birth abortion, giving abortion foes a victory that had eluded them for close to a decade.

Abortion rights advocates said they would immediately go to court to stop what they said was a dangerous incursion against the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

The Senate voted 64-34 Tuesday to ban a type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially delivered before being killed. The House approved the legislation this month, and Bush has urged Congress to get it to his desk.

"This is very important legislation that will end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America," he said in a statement. "I look forward to signing it into law."

That signature would end a legislative crusade that began when Republicans captured the House in 1995. President Clinton twice vetoed similar bills, arguing that they lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother, and in the first year of the Bush administration a Democratic-controlled Senate stopped its advancement.

In the final Senate vote, 17 Democrats joined 47 Republicans to support the ban. Three Republicans voted against the legislation.

With the outcome never in doubt, at least three groups supporting abortion rights prepared lawsuits to stop the law from going into effect and to challenge its constitutionality.

Talcott Camp, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the case could take two to three years to work its way through the courts. The ACLU will represent the National Abortion Federation in its lawsuit.

There was a wide divergence of views about what the procedure encompasses or how frequent it is used, but the opposing sides agreed the legislation was of major consequence.

"Today we have reached a significant victory as we continue to build a more compassionate society and a culture that values every human life," said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., the bill's sponsor.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a heart surgeon, said the ban could save the lives of thousands of soon-to-be-born babies.

"I can say without equivocation that partial birth abortion is brutal, it is barbaric, it is morally offensive, and it is outside the mainstream practice of medicine," he said.

Another physician-politician, Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, said it is the women who need the procedure whose lives were put at risk by Tuesday's Senate vote.

"As a physician, I am outraged that the Senate has decided it is qualified to practice medicine," said Dean, a former governor of Vermont. He said the legislation "will endanger the lives of countless women."

AP) Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., in this image from video, speaks before the Senate...

Other opponents decried a bill they said would criminalize a safe medical practice and subject doctors who violate it to up to two years in prison. The bill "for the first time in history bans a medical procedure without making any exception for the health of the woman," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. "This is a radical, radical thing that is about to happen here."

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said the bill was a clear threat to the future of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide. "I say to the women of America: this is step one," Harkin said.

Key to the court battle will be a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in 2000 that a similar Nebraska state law was unconstitutional because the definition of "partial birth" was too vague and left doctors unsure of what practices were illegal. The court also found fault with the legislation because, while it provided an exception when the life of the mother was in danger, there were no protections for a woman's health.

The new bill defines partial birth abortion as delivery of a fetus "until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of the breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus."

Santorum argued that supporters had met the constitutional questions by tightening the definition and offering extensive findings that the procedure was never needed to protect the health of the mother.

But the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Gloria Feldt, said the bill remained unconstitutional because it "prevents women, in consultation with their families and trusted doctors, from making decisions about their own health."

Tony Perkins, president of the anti-abortion Family Research Council, urged Attorney General John Ashcroft to put up a stiff legal defense. "Given an activist judiciary, the prospects for the ban surviving a court challenge are dim unless the attorney general is ready to pour resources and energy into the fight to defend it," he said.

(AP) Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., an opponent of the legislation, in this image from video, speaks...
---
The bill is S.3

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/

National Abortion Federation: http://www.prochoice.org/

Family Research Council: http://www.frc.org/
 
N

NOSTRIL KING

Guest
#2
Even though I'm pro-choice to an extent...this is great news. There's no way in hell you can't tell me that Partial Birth abortions don't kill a living, almost fully developed child.

Even though that child will 99.9% chance grow up into being a piece of shit like most human beings are, he/she's still innocent at that age.
 
N

NOSTRIL KING

Guest
#4
I suppose that's a bad thing, but I'm all for less bitches in the world. Less shit talking and gossip = blessing in disguise.
 
Jul 24, 2002
4,878
5
0
47
www.soundclick.com
#5
2-0-Sixx said:
But lets not forget that if this is enforced, women that have a serious chance of medical problems, Paralysis and even Death if they give birth, will not be able to save their own lives.
That's the usual excuse for these pro choice "bitches".
We all know they are pro choice because they like the idea of having an eject button. How many of these pro choice whores actually have a medical condition where giving birth can kill them?
How many of these bitches are actually rape victims who became pregnant?
The answer is very little or none.

So why use the same old lame ass excuse?
Why don't they just admit it and say they are pro choice because they like the conveniance of having an emergency eject button????

I'm tellin you man, this fucking world's filled with selfish assholes....
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#7
2-0-Sixx said:
But lets not forget that if this is enforced, women that have a serious chance of medical problems, Paralysis and even Death if they give birth, will not be able to save their own lives.
Come on miggidy. Think logically for a second. No matter how much you are against this, there ARE plenty of women who have conditions. Look it up if you dont believe me.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#9
miggidy said:
Come on bro can't you see the hypocrisy of these women and a few pussy whipped fuck heads?

Woman's health is not their agenda, it is only their excuse....
I'm sure for a lot of them that may be the case, but you cannot take away the rights of other sincere people just because some women are whores.

You have to think about it. Most whores will get there abortion right away, within a few months. They're not going to wait and think about it until the last minute. A lot of these women this late in their pregnancy get the abortion because it is only then when the doctors find out just how serious their condition is.
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#12
you cannot add the exception saying that when a womans well being is at risk it is OK to have a PBA, because according to many people who know alote about the issue, that would just cancel out the whole law, because according to many every womans life is at risk when pregnant, so that would amount to a loophole so big it would render the ban useless.
 
N

NOSTRIL KING

Guest
#13
There's such a thing as percentages. Odds of a healthy woman dying in pregnancy is what, .03%? If that becomes any greater than say, a 5% chance she should

a) Have the abortion and
b) Have her tubes tied to prevent another innocent baby from being murdered in the future.
 
Jul 24, 2002
4,878
5
0
47
www.soundclick.com
#14
2-0-Sixx said:
You know my stance on abortion, I think it should be, however, I wouldnt be upset if this "partial abortion" law was only allowed for medical conditions.
The solution doesn't lie in abortion, but in medical science.

A soon-to-be "loving" mother would never slaughter her soon-to-be child, she would take this risk.
This underlines what I said earlier, people are just selfish.
And abortion as a whole, is a good example of that....
 
Dec 18, 2002
3,928
5
0
38
#15
Mcleanhatch said:
you cannot add the exception saying that when a womans well being is at risk it is OK to have a PBA, because according to many people who know alote about the issue, that would just cancel out the whole law, because according to many every womans life is at risk when pregnant, so that would amount to a loophole so big it would render the ban useless.
What is it with you, you never say anything that is fact unless your posting a report or news of the day. What the fuck is "because according to many people who know alote about he issue, that would just cancel out the whole law". How about you actually name someone, or atleast a source to find a credible "person who knows alot" because obviously you dont know shit about the situation.

@anyone against pro-choice, what your opinions are dont matter to me, because opinions are just that, however, miggidy you seemed to see all women that have abortions negatively, try to look at the BIGGER PICTURE aight. how much does it cost to take care of a child? how much time? what do you teach it? when you have a son what are you going to do with it? a good parent will model its child to be better than they are, if your a 16-18 skank bitch with no income your gunna end up with a fucked up kid, the girl probly wont turn her life around until shes 25-26 and by then the kid is already adolescent. all children are a gift, im not religious so they arent a gift from god but they still are a gift. alls im saying is, people should only have a child they want...
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#16
KrypticFlowz said:
What is it with you, you never say anything that is fact unless your posting a report or news of the day. What the fuck is "because according to many people who know alote about he issue, that would just cancel out the whole law". How about you actually name someone, or atleast a source to find a credible "person who knows alot" because obviously you dont know shit about the situation.
FIRST OF ALL I DONT KNOW WHERE TO FIND IT ON PAPER BUT I HEARD IT STRAIGHT FROM HIS MOUTH ON C-SPAN ON THE SENATE FLOOR FROM DR./SENATOR BILL FRIST FROM TENNESSEE DURING A DEBATE ON THE ISSUE. I HAVE ALSO HEARD SIMULAR THINGS FROM OTHER SENATORS AND OTHER DOCTORS AND PRO-LIFERS.

KrypticFlowz said:
@anyone against pro-choice
I AM PRO-CHOICE IN MANY THINGS BUT ON THIS ISSUE THERE IS NO SUCH THINGS AS PRO-CHOICE, IT IS EITHER PRO-ABORTION OR ANTI-ABORION. THERE IS NO CHOICE HERE. CHOICE IS JUST A WORD MADE UP BY PRO-ABORTION PEOPLE TO TRY AND DEHUMANIZE THE LIVE HEALTHY INNOCENT BABY GROWING INSIDE THE MOTHERS WOMB.

KrypticFlowz said:
try to look at the BIGGER PICTURE aight. how much does it cost to take care of a child?
THAT DOSNT MATTER, I YOU DONT CANT AFFORD IT AT LEAST GIVE IT A CHANCE AND PUT IT UP FOR ADAPTION, I MEAN GIVE THE INNOCENT BABY A CHANCE.

KrypticFlowz said:
how much time?

what do you teach it?
SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IT BEFORE HER HORNY ASS GOT TO FUCKIN

KrypticFlowz said:
when you have a son what are you going to do with it?
LOVE HIM/HER, TEACH HIM/HER, CARE FOR HIM/HER!!

KrypticFlowz said:
a good parent will model its child to be better than they are, if your a 16-18 skank bitch with no income your gunna end up with a fucked up kid, the girl probly wont turn her life around until shes 25-26 and by then the kid is already adolescent.
SO LETS NOT GIVE HIM/HER A CHANCE AND LETS JUST KILL IT BEFORE IT HAS A CHANCE THEN, IS THAT WHAT YOU APPROVE OF???

KrypticFlowz said:
all children are a gift,
YES THEY ARE, OBVIOUSLY YOU DONT THINK SO THOUGH IF YOU WANT TO ABORT 8 MONTH OLD BABIES.

KrypticFlowz said:
alls im saying is, people should only have a child they want...
AND THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO KILL THE ONES THEY DONT??? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING??
 
Jul 24, 2002
4,878
5
0
47
www.soundclick.com
#18
KrypticFlowz said:

@anyone against pro-choice, what your opinions are dont matter to me, because opinions are just that, however, miggidy you seemed to see all women that have abortions negatively, try to look at the BIGGER PICTURE aight. how much does it cost to take care of a child? how much time? what do you teach it? when you have a son what are you going to do with it? a good parent will model its child to be better than they are, if your a 16-18 skank bitch with no income your gunna end up with a fucked up kid, the girl probly wont turn her life around until shes 25-26 and by then the kid is already adolescent. all children are a gift, im not religious so they arent a gift from god but they still are a gift. alls im saying is, people should only have a child they want...
I never saw this reply but it's good that I was browsing through this shit again.

You ask me to look at the bigger picture????
Abortion is not the solution to this problem. What an easy way out eh? How conveniant, "lets just take the life out of this future child instead" woo woo woo....
Naw man, the solution lies in education.
She should've never got pregnant if she couldn't handle being a mother. Abortion only gets rid of the so-called problem on hand but we need to target the source.
The problem isn't a pregnant skank, the problem is the skank.

But any way, this is not the reason why pro choice fuckers support killing babies. They could care less about a baby, hell they fuckin kill them. So it's not about unwanted children, it's about them having the right to cowardly squeeze out of a tight spot that they put themselves in.
It's selfishness man. That's all it is. Selfish human nature....
 
N

NOSTRIL KING

Guest
#19
Miggidy,

the problem is that not everyone believes that a fetus is a living human being yet. Some people see a fetus, especially in the early stages, as just another organ, just like tonsils. You wouldn't limit someone on the right to choose to have their tonsils out would you?
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#20
miggidy said:
the solution lies in education.
exactly!

miggidy said:
But any way, this is not the reason why pro choice fuckers support killing babies.
mig, they arent pro-choice, when it comes to all other subjects they want the governemnt in charge of everything and if the government is in charge their is no choice, what they are is pro-abortion not pro-choice.