<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The battle for our souls continues....</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-T</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com
href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">Donovan Arnold</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=starbliss@gmail.com
href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">Ted Moffett</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:58
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Catholic
Majority On Supreme Court upholds partialbirth abortion ban</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV>We have to draw the line somewhere, and after it pokes his head out, it's
too late to be considering abortion. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Donovan</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><B><I>Ted Moffett <<A
href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</A>></I></B>
wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>All:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think it is fair to state that with this current SCOTUS Roe v. Wade
is threatened.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ted Moffett<BR><BR> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 4/19/07, <B class=gmail_sendername>J
Ford</B> <<A
href="mailto:privatejf35@hotmail.com">privatejf35@hotmail.com</A>>
wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Top
court upholds abortion ban<BR><BR>'Partial birth' law at issue; first time
for justices to ban a specific <BR>procedure<BR><BR>The Associated
Press<BR>Updated: 3:41 p.m. PT April 18, 2007<BR><BR>WASHINGTON - The
Supreme Court's conservative majority upheld a nationwide<BR>ban Wednesday
on a controversial abortion procedure in a decision that sets <BR>the
stage for additional restrictions on a woman's right to choose.<BR><BR>For
the first time since the court established a woman's right to
an<BR>abortion in 1973, the justices said the Constitution permits a
nationwide <BR>prohibition on a specific abortion method. The court's
liberal justices, in<BR>dissent, said the ruling chips away at abortion
rights.<BR><BR>The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said
the Partial Birth <BR>Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President
Bush signed into law in<BR>2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional
right to an abortion.<BR><BR>Siding with Kennedy were Bush's two
appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts <BR>and Justice Samuel Alito, along
with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence<BR>Thomas.<BR><BR>The law is
constitutional despite not containing an exception that would<BR>allow the
procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health, Kennedy said. <BR>"The
law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course
of<BR>their medical practice," he wrote in the majority
opinion.<BR><BR>Doctors who violate the law face up to two years in
federal prison. The law <BR>has never taken effect, pending the outcome of
the legal fight.<BR><BR>Kennedy's opinion was a long-awaited resounding
win that abortion opponents<BR>expected from the more conservative
bench.<BR><BR>In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling
"cannot be <BR>understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at
a right declared<BR>again and again by this court."<BR><BR>Dr. LeRoy
Carhart, the Bellevue, Neb., doctor who challenged the federal<BR>ban,
said, "I am afraid the Supreme Court has just opened the door to an
<BR>all-out assault on" the 1973 ruling in Roe. Wade.<BR><BR>The
administration defended the law as drawing a bright line
between<BR>abortion and infanticide.<BR><BR>Bush 'pleased'-<BR>Reacting to
the ruling, Bush said that it affirms the progress his <BR>administration
has made to defend the "sanctity of life."<BR><BR>"I am pleased that the
Supreme Court has upheld a law that prohibits the<BR>abhorrent procedure
of partial birth abortion," he said. "Today's decision <BR>affirms that
the Constitution does not stand in the way of the
people's<BR>representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and
humanity of<BR>America."<BR><BR>It was the first time the court banned a
specific procedure in a case over <BR>how - not whether - to perform an
abortion.<BR><BR>Abortion rights groups as well as the leading association
of obstetricians<BR>and gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is
the safest for a<BR>woman. They also said that such a ruling could
threaten most abortions after <BR>12 weeks of pregnancy, although Kennedy
said alternate, more widely used<BR>procedures remain legal.<BR><BR>Action
at state level likely-<BR>The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the
state level to place more<BR>restrictions on abortions. <BR><BR>"I applaud
the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the<BR>stage
for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation's laws
respect<BR>the sanctity of unborn human life," said Rep. John Boehner of
Ohio, <BR>Republican leader in the House of Representatives.<BR><BR>Jay
Sekulow, a prominent abortion opponent who is chief counsel for
the<BR>conservative American Center for Law and Justice, said, "This is
the most<BR>monumental win on the abortion issue that we have ever had."
<BR><BR>Said Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America:
"This<BR>ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent
and the best<BR>interest of women's health and safety. ... This ruling
tells women that <BR>politicians, not doctors, will make their health care
decisions for them."<BR>She had argued that point before the
justices.<BR><BR>More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United
States each year,<BR>according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of
those occur in the <BR>first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected
by Wednesday's ruling. The<BR>Guttmacher Institute says 2,200 dilation and
extraction procedures - the<BR>medical term most often used by doctors -
were performed in 2000, the latest <BR>figures available.<BR><BR>Six
federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is
an<BR>impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an
abortion.<BR><BR>Ginsburg writes dissent-<BR>"Today's decision is
alarming," Ginsburg wrote in dissent for the court's <BR>liberal bloc. She
said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" previous<BR>Supreme Court
decisions on abortion.<BR><BR>Ginsburg said the latest decision
"tolerates, indeed applauds, federal<BR>intervention to ban nationwide a
procedure found necessary and proper in <BR>certain cases by the American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."<BR><BR>Ginsburg said that for
the first time since the court established a woman's<BR>right to an
abortion in 1973, "the court blesses a prohibition with no <BR>exception
safeguarding a woman's health."<BR><BR>She was joined by Justices Stephen
Breyer, David Souter and John Paul<BR>Stevens.<BR><BR>The procedure at
issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a <BR>woman's
uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the
abortion.<BR><BR>Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number
of abortions<BR>performed because an alternate method - dismembering the
fetus in the uterus <BR>- is available and, indeed, much more
common.<BR><BR>In 2000, the court with key differences in its membership
struck down a<BR>state ban on partial-birth abortions in a challenge also
brought by Carhart.<BR>Writing for a 5-4 majority at that time, Justice
Breyer said the law imposed <BR>an undue burden on a woman's right to make
an abortion decision in part<BR>because it lacked a health
exception.<BR><BR>The Republican-controlled Congress responded in 2003 by
passing a federal<BR>law that asserted the procedure is gruesome, inhumane
and never medically <BR>necessary to preserve a woman's health. That
statement was designed to<BR>overcome the health exception to restrictions
that the court has demanded in<BR>abortion cases.<BR><BR>But federal
judges in California, Nebraska and New York said the law was
<BR>unconstitutional, and three appellate courts agreed. The Supreme
Court<BR>accepted appeals from California and Nebraska, setting up
Wednesday's<BR>ruling.<BR><BR>Kennedy's dissent in 2000 was so strong that
few court watchers expected him <BR>to take a different view of the
current case.<BR><BR>Kennedy acknowledged continuing disagreement about
the procedure within the<BR>medical community. In the past, courts have
cited that uncertainty as a<BR>reason to allow the disputed procedure.
<BR><BR>"The medical uncertainty over whether the Act's prohibition
creates<BR>significant health risks provides a sufficient basis to
conclude ... that<BR>the Act does not impose an undue burden," Kennedy
said Wednesday. <BR><BR>While the court upheld the law against a broad
attack on its<BR>constitutionality, Kennedy said the court could entertain
a challenge in<BR>which a doctor found it necessary to perform the banned
procedure on a<BR>patient suffering certain medical
complications.<BR><BR>The law allows the procedure to be performed when a
woman's life is in<BR>jeopardy.<BR><BR>The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart,
05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned<BR>Parenthood, 05-1382.
<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>=======================================================<BR>List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities
of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net
<BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P>
<HR SIZE=1>
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?<BR>Check out <A
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM-">new
cars at Yahoo! Autos.</A>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>