[Vision2020] Catholic Majority On Supreme Court upholds murderban

Carl Westberg carlwestberg846 at hotmail.com
Thu Apr 19 18:41:37 PDT 2007


Whoa, Tony.  Such a vituperative description of all who would call 
themselves pro-choice.  Evidently they all "screech with wide eyes and bared 
teeth....."  I would grant that there are those who believe strongly in any 
cause that act that way.  I imagine you could go to a Star Trek convention 
and find people screeching, teeth bared, about the oxygen level on Xenon 
VII.  But, in my limited sphere, neither my pro-choice or pro-life friends 
have screeched or bared teeth that I have seen, unless it's while watching 
the Mariners blow another game.  They're pretty much just folk.  Unless 
they're Boise State fans. For sure, they're evil.   Carl Westberg Jr.


>From: "Tony" <tonytime at clearwire.net>
>To: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Catholic Majority On Supreme Court upholds 
>murderban
>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:36:16 -0700
>
>Donovan is absolutely correct with regard to "partial birth abortion."  
>This "procedure" cannot be countenanced in a civilized society.  No doubt 
>however, those on the left will continue to screech with wide eyes and 
>bared teeth, demanding their "right' to continue murdering the most 
>innocent among us.
>
>The battle for our souls continues....
>
>-T
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Donovan Arnold
>   To: Ted Moffett
>   Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>   Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:58 PM
>   Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Catholic Majority On Supreme Court upholds 
>partialbirth abortion ban
>
>
>   I for one am happy partial birth abortion is banned. I don't know how 
>any human being can be for the slaughter of a baby AFTER it pokes its head 
>out the womb and into this world.
>   We have to draw the line somewhere, and after it pokes his head out, 
>it's too late to be considering abortion.
>
>   Best,
>
>   Donovan
>
>
>
>   Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     All:
>
>     The Catholic majority on the SCOTUS decided this case: Kennedy, Alito, 
>Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, with dissents from Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter and 
>Breyer.  Bush's two new appointees voted just as has been speculated on 
>abortion law.  Perhaps their Catholic religion did not determine how this 
>majority decided, and these cases can of course be decided on very 
>technical legal grounds that can seem unrelated to the important issues.
>
>     But is having one particular religious sect be a majority on the US 
>Supreme Court questionable?  Does this give the Pope influence over law in 
>the USA?  Of course they will rule based on the law and precedent, not 
>their religion, they all will claim.  And who really believes that this 
>supreme objectivity is possible when making legal decisions that might 
>contradict the fundamental moral principles of a persons religion?
>
>     I think it is fair to state that with this current SCOTUS Roe v. Wade 
>is threatened.
>
>     Ted Moffett
>
>
>     On 4/19/07, J Ford <privatejf35 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>       Top court upholds abortion ban
>
>       'Partial birth' law at issue; first time for justices to ban a 
>specific
>       procedure
>
>       The Associated Press
>       Updated: 3:41 p.m. PT April 18, 2007
>
>       WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court's conservative majority upheld a 
>nationwide
>       ban Wednesday on a controversial abortion procedure in a decision 
>that sets
>       the stage for additional restrictions on a woman's right to choose.
>
>       For the first time since the court established a woman's right to an
>       abortion in 1973, the justices said the Constitution permits a 
>nationwide
>       prohibition on a specific abortion method. The court's liberal 
>justices, in
>       dissent, said the ruling chips away at abortion rights.
>
>       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.
>
>       Siding with Kennedy were Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John 
>Roberts
>       and Justice Samuel Alito, along with Justices Antonin Scalia and 
>Clarence
>       Thomas.
>
>       The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that 
>would
>       allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health, Kennedy 
>said.
>       "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the 
>course of
>       their medical practice," he wrote in the majority opinion.
>
>       Doctors who violate the law face up to two years in federal prison. 
>The law
>       has never taken effect, pending the outcome of the legal fight.
>
>       Kennedy's opinion was a long-awaited resounding win that abortion 
>opponents
>       expected from the more conservative bench.
>
>       In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling "cannot be
>       understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right 
>declared
>       again and again by this court."
>
>       Dr. LeRoy Carhart, the Bellevue, Neb., doctor who challenged the 
>federal
>       ban, said, "I am afraid the Supreme Court has just opened the door 
>to an
>       all-out assault on" the 1973 ruling in Roe. Wade.
>
>       The administration defended the law as drawing a bright line between
>       abortion and infanticide.
>
>       Bush 'pleased'-
>       Reacting to the ruling, Bush said that it affirms the progress his
>       administration has made to defend the "sanctity of life."
>
>       "I am pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that prohibits 
>the
>       abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion," he said. "Today's 
>decision
>       affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the 
>people's
>       representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity 
>of
>       America."
>
>       It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a 
>case over
>       how - not whether - to perform an abortion.
>
>       Abortion rights groups as well as the leading association of 
>obstetricians
>       and gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is the safest 
>for a
>       woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most 
>abortions after
>       12 weeks of pregnancy, although Kennedy said alternate, more widely 
>used
>       procedures remain legal.
>
>       Action at state level likely-
>       The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place 
>more
>       restrictions on abortions.
>
>       "I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it 
>sets the
>       stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation's laws 
>respect
>       the sanctity of unborn human life," said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio,
>       Republican leader in the House of Representatives.
>
>       Jay Sekulow, a prominent abortion opponent who is chief counsel for 
>the
>       conservative American Center for Law and Justice, said, "This is the 
>most
>       monumental win on the abortion issue that we have ever had."
>
>       Said 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."
>       She had argued that point before the justices.
>
>       More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States 
>each year,
>       according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in 
>the
>       first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday's 
>ruling. The
>       Guttmacher Institute says 2,200 dilation and extraction procedures - 
>the
>       medical term most often used by doctors - were performed in 2000, 
>the latest
>       figures available.
>
>       Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is 
>an
>       impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an 
>abortion.
>
>       Ginsburg writes dissent-
>       "Today's decision is alarming," Ginsburg wrote in dissent for the 
>court's
>       liberal bloc. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" 
>previous
>       Supreme Court decisions on abortion.
>
>       Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, 
>federal
>       intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and 
>proper in
>       certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and 
>Gynecologists."
>
>       Ginsburg said that for the first time since the court established a 
>woman's
>       right to an abortion in 1973, "the court blesses a prohibition with 
>no
>       exception safeguarding a woman's health."
>
>       She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John 
>Paul
>       Stevens.
>
>       The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact 
>from a
>       woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the 
>abortion.
>
>       Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of 
>abortions
>       performed because an alternate method - dismembering the fetus in 
>the uterus
>       - is available and, indeed, much more common.
>
>       In 2000, the court with key differences in its membership struck 
>down a
>       state ban on partial-birth abortions in a challenge also brought by 
>Carhart.
>       Writing for a 5-4 majority at that time, Justice Breyer said the law 
>imposed
>       an undue burden on a woman's right to make an abortion decision in 
>part
>       because it lacked a health exception.
>
>       The Republican-controlled Congress responded in 2003 by passing a 
>federal
>       law that asserted the procedure is gruesome, inhumane and never 
>medically
>       necessary to preserve a woman's health. That statement was designed 
>to
>       overcome the health exception to restrictions that the court has 
>demanded in
>       abortion cases.
>
>       But federal judges in California, Nebraska and New York said the law 
>was
>       unconstitutional, and three appellate courts agreed. The Supreme 
>Court
>       accepted appeals from California and Nebraska, setting up 
>Wednesday's
>       ruling.
>
>       Kennedy's dissent in 2000 was so strong that few court watchers 
>expected him
>       to take a different view of the current case.
>
>       Kennedy acknowledged continuing disagreement about the procedure 
>within the
>       medical community. In the past, courts have cited that uncertainty 
>as a
>       reason to allow the disputed procedure.
>
>       "The medical uncertainty over whether the Act's prohibition creates
>       significant health risks provides a sufficient basis to conclude ... 
>that
>       the Act does not impose an undue burden," Kennedy said Wednesday.
>
>       While the court upheld the law against a broad attack on its
>       constitutionality, Kennedy said the court could entertain a 
>challenge in
>       which a doctor found it necessary to perform the banned procedure on 
>a
>       patient suffering certain medical complications.
>
>       The law allows the procedure to be performed when a woman's life is 
>in
>       jeopardy.
>
>       The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned
>       Parenthood, 05-1382.
>
>
>     =======================================================
>     List services made available by First Step Internet,
>     serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>     http://www.fsr.net
>     mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>     =======================================================
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
>   Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>   =======================================================
>    List services made available by First Step Internet,
>    serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                  http://www.fsr.net
>             mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>   =======================================================


>=======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================

_________________________________________________________________
Interest Rates NEAR 39yr LOWS!  $430,000 Mortgage for $1,299/mo - Calculate 
new payment 
http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-19132&moid=14888



More information about the Vision2020 mailing list