About a half hour ago, I heard of the San Francisco judge's ruling in favor of partial-birth abortions.
Freakin' ridiculous.
Not only did she support this horrific act, she overturned a congressional ban on the practice of it, one that was supported by 68% of Americans (Gallup Poll) by claiming that the ban was unconstitutional.
[Please excuse my graphic nature, but it's for the sake of the discussion]For those of you who don't know, partial-birth abortions occur when a baby is partially delivered. When the baby is still half-in, the doctors crush its skull with a pair of forceps, insert a tube, and suck the brains out, thus killing it.
It's no wonder why congress overwhelmingly passed a ban on this act, yet there are still supporters (John Kerry is one of them, and he even supported this judge on her ruling). Now, early pregnancy abortions are a completely different story, as the abortions in question are solely partial-birth ones.
I don't know what loose interpretation of the constitution this activist judge used, because NOWHERE in the document that is the supreme law of our land does it say a woman has the right to terminate the life of a child. Note for the sake of noting: she was appointed by Clinton.
UPDATE:She said the ban was "unconstitutionally vague" and something else that I don't want to misquote that pretty much means the wording was kinda sketchy. Yeah, that's grounds if I ever heard it.... [/sarcasm]
The bottom line is that the will of the people (AND its elected officials) was bypassed so that this judge could further her personal agenda. I think her actions are completely outrageous, what about y'all?
Hopefully we can have some discussion of the legality of partial-birth abortions (NOT anything about early-term, though, becuase that's a different matter) and/or judicial activism.
--Guido
Freakin' ridiculous.
Not only did she support this horrific act, she overturned a congressional ban on the practice of it, one that was supported by 68% of Americans (Gallup Poll) by claiming that the ban was unconstitutional.
[Please excuse my graphic nature, but it's for the sake of the discussion]For those of you who don't know, partial-birth abortions occur when a baby is partially delivered. When the baby is still half-in, the doctors crush its skull with a pair of forceps, insert a tube, and suck the brains out, thus killing it.
It's no wonder why congress overwhelmingly passed a ban on this act, yet there are still supporters (John Kerry is one of them, and he even supported this judge on her ruling). Now, early pregnancy abortions are a completely different story, as the abortions in question are solely partial-birth ones.
I don't know what loose interpretation of the constitution this activist judge used, because NOWHERE in the document that is the supreme law of our land does it say a woman has the right to terminate the life of a child. Note for the sake of noting: she was appointed by Clinton.
UPDATE:She said the ban was "unconstitutionally vague" and something else that I don't want to misquote that pretty much means the wording was kinda sketchy. Yeah, that's grounds if I ever heard it.... [/sarcasm]
The bottom line is that the will of the people (AND its elected officials) was bypassed so that this judge could further her personal agenda. I think her actions are completely outrageous, what about y'all?
Hopefully we can have some discussion of the legality of partial-birth abortions (NOT anything about early-term, though, becuase that's a different matter) and/or judicial activism.
--Guido
Comment