[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