Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Poll: Ban On Partial Birth Abortion Is Not Unconstitutional ... What Do You Think?

Scroll down for the poll ...

Drudge is breaking this, and has the reactions of the top presidential candidates. It's very telling to see where they come down on this issue, and should sway at least a few votes.


The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The law also will allow up to two years in prison if a doctor chooses to ignore it.

Of course, Planned Parenthood is upset with the ruling.

Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety. ... This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them."

This law will affect less than 10% of abortions in the US (0.17% according to some) ... so Planned Parenthood's profit margin is still pretty solid. There isn't a provision to allow for the procedure in case of the mother's health, and I would like to see that included, but this all or nothing attitude is the reason why nothing gets done in this country. There is no argument outside of the mother's health that can justify partial birth abortion ... that is murder by all definitions. Once the fetus develops beyond a certain point ... it is a child.

I headed over to Planned Parenthood's website, and found a pop-up asking for donations to fight the Supreme Court's ruling.

Pretty interesting huh?

At the end of the news story on their site was this paragraph:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America is the nation's leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider. We believe that everyone has the right to choose when or whether to have a child, and that every child should be wanted and loved. Planned Parenthood affiliates operate more than 860 health centers nationwide, providing medical services and sexuality education for millions of women, men, and teenagers each year. We also work with allies worldwide to ensure that all women and men have the right and the means to meet their sexual and reproductive health care needs.

Erin Kiernon, 202-973-4975

I guess the "when" part includes killing a fully formed child in some circumstances. Notice they didn't oppose the Supreme Court's decision based on a lack of a provision for the mother's health. Actually, they didn't even mention it. It seems they are taking the old, tired, asinine argument that it's a woman's body. Also keep in mind that in 2005 Planned Parenthood got $272 million in tax funds, 2x the money it made from its 255,000 abortions that year. H/T: Stop the Aclu

I figured I would hop over to the ACLU's website to see what they have to say. I knew I was in for a treat because the ACLU fought for the rights of a pregnant woman to do crack while pregnant no matter what the damage was to the baby without fear of prosecution. After clicking past a rather humorous pop-up that was asking where the Constitution was (very funny considering the ACLU opposes the Second Amendment) ... I wasn't disappointed.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Abortion Federation (NAF) today sharply criticized a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a federal law banning certain abortions. It is the first abortion decision from the Supreme Court since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired. Both organizations said that the Court’s decision will endanger women’s health.

It's nice to know that the ACLU is actually looking out for someone's health ... even if it isn't the baby's. The ACLU also has a history of protecting pedophiles instead of worrying themselves with the health of the children.

Hillary said:

"It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."

Obama said:

"I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."

Edwards said:

"I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women."

They all talked about a woman's right to choose being violated with this decision which is what is going to hurt their numbers. If they just stuck with the health of the mother provision they would have been ok. Truth is, they don't distinguish between partial-birth abortion and abortion here, and they are two very different things.

Giuliani, McCain, and Romney all agreed with the decision. What do you think?

Do You Agee With The Supreme Courts Ruling On Partial-Birth Abortions?
I completely agree with the entire ruling.
I agree, but would like a provision to protect the mother's health.
I completely disagree with the entire ruling.
I would disagree with the ruling even if there was a provision to protect the mother's health. free polls


2 comments to "Poll: Ban On Partial Birth Abortion Is Not Unconstitutional ... What Do You Think?"

Anonymous said...
6:10 PM

while Planned Parenthood espouses that they think every person should have a right to chose if and when they reproduce, they do nothing for men. period.

if abortion is to remain legal, then men should also have the right to opt out in the first tri-mester.

Casey said...
9:37 PM

Bingo! I've been saying that very thing for years.



Copyright 2008 All Rights Reserved Revolution Two Church theme by Brian Gardner Converted into Blogger Template by Bloganol dot com