americanfreepress.org�  in association with the Liberty Project� presents

Back to the ap   |   The ap archives   |   Contact the ap   |   ap Retractions   |   tha malcontent

 

ap / associalisticpress.com�    Vs.    �


 Foes of Abortion Procedure Near Victory

By JIM ABRAMS (Direct descendent of Karl Marx! - tha malcontent)
Associated Press Writer Oct 1, 2:33 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) � Culminating an eight-year battle that featured two presidential vetoes, Congress is poised again to ban doctors from carrying out a procedure for terminating pregnancies that opponents call partial birth abortion.

 

(ap) - "Foes of Abortion Procedure..."?  "Abortion Procedure" is one way to put it, AP, another is "Late Term Abortion", another is "Dilation and Extraction", and yet another is "Partial Birth Abortion".  Of course, none of these were chosen by the Associated Press, rather they chose the least offensive name possible for this procedure in the hopes of continuing the Agenda of the Party that they support in this debate, and the Party that they support every other November, the DemocRAT Party.  Considering how offensive this "procedure" is, it is quite telling that the AP chose the label that they did.  If you read further, we find that "Opponents" call it "Partial Birth Abortion", according to the AP.  Does this negate the validity of the description, or is this "procedure" Factually an "Abortion" performed while the baby is "partially birthed" up to it's head, after which, a whole is cut into the back of the head, and a tube is inserted, after which, the contents of the skull are "evacuated", and the "fetus" is "Aborted".  If what I have just said is untrue, and it is, check the AMA's description of "Dilation and Extraction", or "D and X", and show me where I have misrepresented this "procedure".  This obscenity that is "Partial Birth Abortion" is so self-evident, that the AP would NEVER tell "the people" what REALLY happens, to the contrary, they give it a sterile name, such as, "Abortion Procedure", and then insinuate, via DemocRATS hysterical quotes, that this Law will be "unconstitutional", as if the "Right to Abortion" is enumerated in the Constitution, which it is not.  Not unlike the fetus in a "Partial Birth Abortion", the Supreme Court "extracted" a "(r)ight" that previously did not exist, out of a contrived "(r)ight to privacy", that they themselves created outside of the process laid out in the Constitution for Amending the aforementioned document.  This is also known as "Legislating from the Bench", and it was "the great object" of Thomas Jefferson's "fear".  The forward thinking, and insight on the part of the Founders is still mind-blowing to this day.  Anyway, let us continue with what is sure to be, yet another, in a long line of pro-Abortion DNC Talking Points, masquerading as legitimate Wire copy, shall we! - tha malcontent)

President Bush says he will gladly sign the current legislation.

 

(Yeah, he says he will GLADLY sign it!  If you can't smell the attitude in that line, then you are most likely one of them! - tha malcontent)

It would be the first federal law banning a specific abortion procedure since the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that women have the right to an abortion.

 

(A "Supreme Court ruling", can NOT "give" anyone "Rights".  This is exactly the polar opposite of what the Founders intended, as is illustrated by the one and only process for adding to, or taking from the Constitution, and that is the "Amending" process.  A handful of political appointees defining the Constitution, brought America Dred/Scott, don't ever forget that Fact!  Dred v. Scott and Roe v. Wade are Moral parallels in such an obvious way, that only the most brutally dishonest among us can deny it.  Dred v. Scott ruled that Blacks, specifically Slaves, were not humans, but property, that were secondary to the Slave owner, and Roe v. Wade ruled that fetuses are not humans, but organs, that are secondary to the Mother that is carrying them.  Truth and the Medical Communities awakening, and Honesty on this subject, will eventually overturn Roe v. Wade, and then that Congress will send a Law to that President, finally calling the Abortion of viable Human Life, "Murder", because that is exactly what it is. - tha malcontent)

The House could take up the compromise bill as early as Thursday, with the Senate expected to act by mid-month, sending it to the president's desk for his signature.

House and Senate negotiators quickly reached the compromise Tuesday after stripping out a provision, added by the Senate when it passed the measure in March, that expressed support for the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The House bill, approved in June, did not include such language.

 

(Good. - tha malcontent)


All six Republican negotiators voted for the bill, while the four Democrats opposed it.

 

(No DemocRATS voted "Yea"?... Shocking! I read another AP headline recently: "Democrats Want a Special Leak Probe"... Is this in regard to finding out if any of the "fetuses" brains "leak" out when the "evacuation" process is happening?  That would be wasteful, you know!  That "material" can be used by science! - tha malcontent)

"Basic human decency has prevailed," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said. The procedure "is never medically necessary, it is never the safest procedure available, and it is morally reprehensible and unconscionable."

 

(Partial Birth Abortion "is never medically necessary"  If this is untrue, then Prove it.  The Fact is, it is True.  A Partial Birth Abortion has NEVER saved a Mother's Life to date.  Thousands a year, and not one saved a Mother's Life.  Yet another Fact that the Left refuses to discuss rationally, and Honestly. - tha malcontent)

But opponents expressed confidence that the bill, like similar state laws, would be overturned by court challenges.

"I wonder why we are even bothering to pass a bill that is so clearly unconstitutional," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. The clear aim, she said, was to use the legislation to erode support for Roe v. Wade. "Bit by bit, what's happening is a pushing back of the clock to the way the nation was 30 years ago."

 

(The Founders would have preferred "eroding" a Supreme Court's unconstitutional ruling via legislation, as the current REPUBLICan controlled Congress is doing.  They would really have preferred an Amendment putting an end to the debate altogether though! - tha malcontent)

Partial birth is not a medically accepted term, but as defined by the bill it is a procedure in which the fetus is killed after the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother or, in the case of breech presentation, "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."

 

("Dilation and Extraction" IS the "medically accepted term", and the AP refuses to even use it!  By the way, the head is not allowed to be removed in any process of "legal" Abortion currently.  The AP is Factually inaccurate in this case.  If the head comes out of the Mother, the Abortion legally becomes murder if continued at that point. - tha malcontent)

While there is an argument about how often such abortions are carried out, there's some agreement that it mostly occurs during the second and third trimester.

 

(There are no arguments about how many heart surgeries are carried out in this Country, so why would there be an argument about how many times another medical procedure would be performed, unless that information was being deliberately suppressed.  Me thinks I know the answer to that one. - tha malcontent)

President Clinton twice vetoed similar bills emerging from Congress on the grounds that they did not provide an exception for the health of the mother.

 

(The keyword here, is "health", not "Life".  The argument that the Left fronts in this case, is, was and always will be Dishonest because they are attempting to trick you into thinking "health" means "Life", and it does not.  This is why Clinton vetoed at MIDNIGHT!  There was an exception for the LIFE of the Mother in those Bills, and there is also one in the current Bill that Bush (43) is going to sign!  Keep in mind, "Health" means "Mental Health", and "Financial Health" among other things.  This is why the Left continues to lose Power every election, their Dishonesty is no longer veiled very well, nor hidden by their monopolizing of the "Free Press"! - tha malcontent)

The lack of a health exception was one reason the Supreme Court, in the Stenberg v. Carhart case of 2000, ruled that a similar Nebraska law was unconstitutional. The court, in its 5-4 decision, also said the procedure was not adequately defined.

 

(Again, the Mother's "Health" versus the Mother's "Life", are two entirely different things!  But the simple amongst us are not capable of understanding the differences in the choice of words on the part of the "Free Press".  This has a lot to do with the Government Indoctrination Camps, also know as the Public Schools. - tha malcontent)

Supporters said they had met the court's objections by tightening up the definition and providing findings in the bill to show that the procedure is never needed to protect a woman's health.

 

(Again, for the Record: "Dilation and Extraction" has NEVER saved a Mother's "LIFE", but just in case, there is a provision for just such an occurrence.  The Dishonesty is legion in this AP Wire story! - tha malcontent)

But Dr. Leroy Carhart, who successfully challenged the Nebraska law, said the language was still so vague that it could effectively rule out "all safe methods of abortion that I use as early as the 12th week" of a pregnancy. He said the measure would scare physicians away from performing what might be legal procedures and "forces me to practice unsafe medicine."

 

(Is this "Dr." an activist of any kind?  The AP would share that information, if they were Honest, or if he were a Pro-Life Activist in support of this Bill! - tha malcontent)

Any doctor who performs the procedure is subject to fines and up to two years in prison.

Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood, said the current Supreme Court would undoubtedly find the bill unconstitutional and her group and other abortion rights groups would file suit and seek an injunction against its implementation as soon as it is signed into law.

 

(Just how many "Parenthoods" does PP plan every year, as compared to how many UN-Planned Parenthoods that they TERMINATE?  That info would be helpful also, AP! - tha malcontent)

"Their strategy is that they hope it will be a different Supreme Court" by the time the case reaches that level, she said.

Jim Backlin, legislative director for the Christian Coalition, said that if Bush is elected to a second term he might be able to appoint one to three anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court, tipping the court in favor of restrictions on partial birth and other forms of abortion.

 

(Do you mean to tell me, that Bush (43) would appoint Judges who "APPLY", as opposed to "interpret" the Constitution?... Why, that's about as radical as our Founders! - tha malcontent)

"It's symbolic, but it will also be the first step toward getting other pro-life legislation passed," he said.

 

(Nice job AP, you found just the angle you wanted to represent the "other side", while voices such as mine, who can make rational, and Honest arguments, never get a drop of ink on your Marxist Wire, didn't you!  Classic... - tha malcontent)

---

The bill is H.R. 760.

On the Net:

Christian Coalition: http://www.cc.org/


Planned Parenthood: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/

 


� Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


(That depends on what the meaning of "may" is... All commentary included on this website is the opinion of tha malcontent and is based in the Truth.  No Liberals, Marxists, Stalinists, Socialists, Communists or DemocRATS were harmed in the making of this website, I promise! -  tha malcontent)

 

Don't do what you're polled to do!� 

 

This web site is designed, maintained and edited by tha malcontent...

 

 "what have you done for Liberty today?"

 

associalisticpress.com� is protected speech pursuant to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and is faithfully enforced by tha malcontent via the Second Amendment to that same Constitution. Any reproduction or redistribution of this article will be seen as an awakening of a Patriot in this Great Republic by tha malcontent, and subsequently applauded! (copyrightwing 2000-2003)

 

associalisticpress.com�

 

an americanfreepress� organization 2000-2003

 

The ap�  & The afp�

 

- the Liberty Project� -

 

'Si vis pacem Para Bellum'

 

Back to the ap  |   The ap archives   |   Contact the ap  |   ap Retractions  |   tha malcontent