<!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, you have thoughtfully and compassionately
stated the middle of the road position on abortion. While I may take a more
strict position, if only slightly, I find your reasoning sound and your heart in
the right place and wanted to commend you for being the kind of person who would
come to such an evenhanded conclusion. Someday our society will come to a
consensus on this most critical of questions and that consensus will likely run
fairly close to what you have articulated so persuasively.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Do have a pleasant week.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-Tony</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=suehovey@moscow.com
href="mailto:suehovey@moscow.com">Sue Hovey</A> ; <A
title=carlwestberg846@hotmail.com
href="mailto:carlwestberg846@hotmail.com">Carl Westberg</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, April 20, 2007 2:03
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Is it
Infanticide Vs. Abortion? (was: CatholicMajority On Supreme Court)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Sue,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>A society that doesn't allow women the same rights as men is a society in
name only. However, nobody has the right to slaughter an innocent
baby.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Don't get me wrong. I believe that abortion should remain legal. But I am
steadfastly against infanticide. At what point does abortion become
infanticide? I believe that is when the fetus is closer to a baby than a
fetus. That point happens sometime between the 20th and 25th week of
pregnancy. Therefore, killing something in the womb after the 20th week, as is
the case with ALL partial birth abortion, is closer to infanticide than
abortion.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Making the argument that men as a consequence of not being able to give
birth (this won't be true for very much longer) that they must forgo
their right to govern concerning the sanctity of life is a flawed
argument. It is like saying, if you don't own a cat you cannot make a law
regarding the ethical treatment of cats. I don't have children, but that
doesn't mean I don't have the right to think and speak against that
child abuse. I don't have a wife, nor will I ever be a wife, should
I not have a right to say certain treatments of your wife should be outlawed?
Should I listen to the arguments that if I am not married I shouldn't have a
say in laws in the ethical treatment of a spouse? Nonsense. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have a moral and ethical obligation to speak up when I believe
vulnerable members of our society are being mistreated. I believe
abortion at some point abortion becomes infanticide. I believe that I
have an obligation to speak up when I see babies being slaughter under the
false premise that is it another person's right to make such a decision.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I believe that 20 weeks is ample time to arrange for an abortion.
There are ample other methods as well. Waiting until the fetus is 6 months
along, 8 months, 9, months, born, breast feeding, graduated from high
school, etc, it is just too late, it now a human being, with a brain
and independent thoughts and movements. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>My final point is this; Regardless of if you believe the government
should or should not, and at what point, intervene with the sanctity
of life, abortion is still EVIL and a grave sin. It is wrong, it is an
illness on society that nearly a million women get pregnant unwantingly, and
then go through with the act of terminating a life. Many so called prochoicers
are not really for choices, but simply for keeping the opportunity for
abortion as open as possible even when the
abortion procedure mirrors infanticide. The TRUTH is, many
women in our society participate in abortion because of lack of choices,
in economic opportunity, and in raising a child in a fair and safe
society. Giving women more economic opportunity is what reduces abortion and
gives more women a real choice, and what society should be concentrating
on.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Donovan</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR><B><I>Sue Hovey <suehovey@moscow.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Carl,
this isn't directed at you. I just read Tony's and Donovan's remarks
<BR>prior to yours so am posting it as an add on to yours.<BR><BR>It bothers
me that 5 men who would never have to be faced with such an issue <BR>have
declared themselves to be omniscient in its regard.<BR><BR>It bothers me
that a woman who might have been looking forward to the birth <BR>of a baby,
and then learns of serious consequences for her health or her <BR>ability to
have more children, is now denied the procedure that might be her <BR>only
healthy choice.<BR><BR>It bothers me that those of you on this site who
accuse those of us on the <BR>"left" that our response will be to "screech
with wide eyes and bared <BR>teeth," are casting verbal stones without so
much as an idea of what our <BR>response will be or what we may
feel.<BR><BR>There are good people on both sides of this issue. And the good
people are <BR>either grateful for the decision or concerned about what the
courts and <BR>legislatures will do next. People who really care about
children want the <BR>best for them even after they are born. Just watch the
Idaho Legislature <BR>next session. They will certainly work even more
diligently to limit <BR>abortion, but do little or nothing to ensure a
working mother can leave her <BR>children in a childcare facility that will
be safe. I am reminded too, <BR>there was, and I imagine still is, a section
of Idaho law which, if it ever <BR>becomes enforceable, would force a woman
to get permission from her husband <BR>before she could elect to have an
abortion--even if that husband had nothing <BR>to do with getting her
pregnant.<BR><BR>Here we have Idaho.....<BR><BR>Sue
Hovey<BR><BR><BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: "Carl Westberg"
<CARLWESTBERG846@HOTMAIL.COM><BR>To: <VISION2020@MOSCOW.COM><BR>Sent:
Thursday, April 19, 2007 6:41 PM<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Catholic
Majority On Supreme Court <BR>upholdsmurderban<BR><BR><BR>> Whoa, Tony.
Such a vituperative description of all who would call<BR>> themselves
pro-choice. Evidently they all "screech with wide eyes and <BR>>
bared<BR>> teeth....." I would grant that there are those who believe
strongly in <BR>> any<BR>> cause that act that way. I imagine you
could go to a Star Trek convention<BR>> and find people screeching, teeth
bared, about the oxygen level on Xenon<BR>> VII. But, in my limited
sphere, neither my pro-choice or pro-life friends<BR>> have screeched or
bared teeth that I have seen, unless it's while watching<BR>> the
Mariners blow another game. They're pretty much just folk. Unless<BR>>
they're Boise State fans. For sure, they're evil. Carl Westberg
Jr.<BR>><BR>><BR>>>From: "Tony"
<TONYTIME@CLEARWIRE.NET><BR>>>To: "Donovan Arnold"
<DONOVANJARNOLD2005@YAHOO.COM><BR>>>CC:
vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Catholic Majority
On Supreme Court upholds<BR>>>murderban<BR>>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr
2007 14:36:16 -0700<BR>>><BR>>>Donovan is absolutely correct
with regard to "partial birth abortion."<BR>>>This "procedure" cannot
be countenanced in a civilized society. No doubt<BR>>>however, those
on the left will continue to screech with wide eyes and<BR>>>bared
teeth, demanding their "right' to continue murdering the
most<BR>>>innocent among us.<BR>>><BR>>>The battle for our
souls continues....<BR>>><BR>>>-T<BR>>> ----- Original
Message -----<BR>>> From: Donovan Arnold<BR>>> To: Ted
Moffett<BR>>> Cc: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>> Sent: Thursday,
April 19, 2007 1:58 PM<BR>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Catholic
Majority On Supreme Court upholds<BR>>>partialbirth abortion
ban<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> I for one am happy partial birth
abortion is banned. I don't know how<BR>>>any human being can be for
the slaughter of a baby AFTER it pokes its head<BR>>>out the womb and
into this world.<BR>>> We have to draw the line somewhere, and after
it pokes his head out,<BR>>>it's too late to be considering
abortion.<BR>>><BR>>> Best,<BR>>><BR>>>
Donovan<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> Ted Moffett
<STARBLISS@GMAIL.COM>wrote:<BR>>><BR>>>
All:<BR>>><BR>>> The Catholic majority on the SCOTUS decided
this case: Kennedy, <BR>>> Alito,<BR>>>Roberts, Scalia, Thomas,
with dissents from Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter and<BR>>>Breyer. Bush's
two new appointees voted just as has been speculated on<BR>>>abortion
law. Perhaps their Catholic religion did not determine how
this<BR>>>majority decided, and these cases can of course be decided
on very<BR>>>technical legal grounds that can seem unrelated to the
important issues.<BR>>><BR>>> But is having one particular
religious sect be a majority on the US<BR>>>Supreme Court
questionable? Does this give the Pope influence over law in<BR>>>the
USA? Of course they will rule based on the law and precedent,
not<BR>>>their religion, they all will claim. And who really believes
that this<BR>>>supreme objectivity is possible when making legal
decisions that might<BR>>>contradict the fundamental moral principles
of a persons religion?<BR>>><BR>>> I think it is fair to state
that with this current SCOTUS Roe v. Wade<BR>>>is
threatened.<BR>>><BR>>> Ted
Moffett<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> On 4/19/07, J Ford
<PRIVATEJF35@HOTMAIL.COM>wrote:<BR>>> Top court upholds abortion
ban<BR>>><BR>>> 'Partial birth' law at issue; first time for
justices to ban a<BR>>>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<BR>>>nationwide<BR>>> ban
Wednesday on a controversial abortion procedure in a
decision<BR>>>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 <BR>>>
an<BR>>> abortion in 1973, the justices said the Constitution permits
a<BR>>>nationwide<BR>>> prohibition on a specific abortion
method. The court's liberal<BR>>>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 <BR>>>
Partial<BR>>>Birth<BR>>> Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed
and President Bush signed <BR>>> into<BR>>>law in<BR>>>
2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an <BR>>>
abortion.<BR>>><BR>>> Siding with Kennedy were Bush's two
appointees, Chief Justice John<BR>>>Roberts<BR>>> and Justice
Samuel Alito, along with Justices Antonin Scalia
and<BR>>>Clarence<BR>>> Thomas.<BR>>><BR>>> The law
is constitutional despite not containing an exception
that<BR>>>would<BR>>> allow the procedure if needed to preserve
a woman's health, Kennedy<BR>>>said.<BR>>> "The law need not
give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the<BR>>>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.<BR>>>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<BR>>>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<BR>>>declared<BR>>> again
and again by this court."<BR>>><BR>>> Dr. LeRoy Carhart, the
Bellevue, Neb., doctor who challenged the<BR>>>federal<BR>>>
ban, said, "I am afraid the Supreme Court has just opened the
door<BR>>>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 <BR>>> 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 <BR>>> prohibits<BR>>>the<BR>>>
abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion," he said.
"Today's<BR>>>decision<BR>>> affirms that the Constitution does
not stand in the way of the<BR>>>people's<BR>>> representatives
enacting laws reflecting the compassion and <BR>>>
humanity<BR>>>of<BR>>> America."<BR>>><BR>>> It was
the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a<BR>>>case
over<BR>>> how - not whether - to perform an
abortion.<BR>>><BR>>> Abortion rights groups as well as the
leading association of<BR>>>obstetricians<BR>>> and
gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is the safest<BR>>>for
a<BR>>> woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten
most<BR>>>abortions after<BR>>> 12 weeks of pregnancy, although
Kennedy said alternate, more widely<BR>>>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<BR>>>more<BR>>> restrictions on
abortions.<BR>>><BR>>> "I applaud the Court for its ruling
today, and my hope is that it<BR>>>sets the<BR>>> stage for
further progress in the fight to ensure our nation's
laws<BR>>>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<BR>>>the<BR>>> conservative
American Center for Law and Justice, said, "This is <BR>>>
the<BR>>>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:<BR>>>"This<BR>>> ruling flies
in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and<BR>>>the
best<BR>>> interest of women's health and safety. ... This ruling
tells women<BR>>>that<BR>>> politicians, not doctors, will make
their health care decisions for<BR>>>them."<BR>>> She had argued
that point before the justices.<BR>>><BR>>> More than 1 million
abortions are performed in the United States<BR>>>each
year,<BR>>> according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those
occur in<BR>>>the<BR>>> first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not
affected by Wednesday's<BR>>>ruling. The<BR>>> Guttmacher
Institute says 2,200 dilation and extraction <BR>>> procedures
-<BR>>>the<BR>>> medical term most often used by doctors - were
performed in 2000,<BR>>>the latest<BR>>> figures
available.<BR>>><BR>>> Six federal courts have said the law that
was in focus Wednesday is<BR>>>an<BR>>> impermissible
restriction on a woman's constitutional right to
an<BR>>>abortion.<BR>>><BR>>> Ginsburg writes
dissent-<BR>>> "Today's decision is alarming," Ginsburg wrote in
dissent for the<BR>>>court's<BR>>> liberal bloc. She said the
ruling "refuses to take ... seriously"<BR>>>previous<BR>>>
Supreme Court decisions on abortion.<BR>>><BR>>> Ginsburg said
the latest decision "tolerates, indeed
applauds,<BR>>>federal<BR>>> intervention to ban nationwide a
procedure found necessary and<BR>>>proper in<BR>>> certain cases
by the American College of Obstetricians
and<BR>>>Gynecologists."<BR>>><BR>>> Ginsburg said that
for the first time since the court established
a<BR>>>woman's<BR>>> right to an abortion in 1973, "the court
blesses a prohibition with<BR>>>no<BR>>> exception safeguarding
a woman's health."<BR>>><BR>>> She was joined by Justices
Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John<BR>>>Paul<BR>>>
Stevens.<BR>>><BR>>> The procedure at issue involves partially
removing the fetus intact<BR>>>from a<BR>>> woman's uterus, then
crushing or cutting its skull to complete
the<BR>>>abortion.<BR>>><BR>>> Abortion opponents say the
law will not reduce the number of<BR>>>abortions<BR>>> performed
because an alternate method - dismembering the fetus in<BR>>>the
uterus<BR>>> - is available and, indeed, much more
common.<BR>>><BR>>> In 2000, the court with key differences in
its membership struck<BR>>>down a<BR>>> state ban on
partial-birth abortions in a challenge also brought
by<BR>>>Carhart.<BR>>> Writing for a 5-4 majority at that time,
Justice Breyer said the <BR>>> law<BR>>>imposed<BR>>> an
undue burden on a woman's right to make an abortion decision
in<BR>>>part<BR>>> because it lacked a health
exception.<BR>>><BR>>> The Republican-controlled Congress
responded in 2003 by passing a<BR>>>federal<BR>>> law that
asserted the procedure is gruesome, inhumane and
never<BR>>>medically<BR>>> necessary to preserve a woman's
health. That statement was designed<BR>>>to<BR>>> overcome the
health exception to restrictions that the court has<BR>>>demanded
in<BR>>> abortion cases.<BR>>><BR>>> But federal judges in
California, Nebraska and New York said the <BR>>>
law<BR>>>was<BR>>> unconstitutional, and three appellate courts
agreed. The Supreme<BR>>>Court<BR>>> accepted appeals from
California and Nebraska, setting up<BR>>>Wednesday's<BR>>>
ruling.<BR>>><BR>>> Kennedy's dissent in 2000 was so strong that
few court watchers<BR>>>expected him<BR>>> to take a different
view of the current case.<BR>>><BR>>> Kennedy acknowledged
continuing disagreement about the procedure<BR>>>within
the<BR>>> medical community. In the past, courts have cited that
uncertainty<BR>>>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 <BR>>> ...<BR>>>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<BR>>>challenge in<BR>>> which a doctor found
it necessary to perform the banned procedure <BR>>>
on<BR>>>a<BR>>> patient suffering certain medical
complications.<BR>>><BR>>> The law allows the procedure to be
performed when a woman's life is<BR>>>in<BR>>>
jeopardy.<BR>>><BR>>> The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380,
and Gonzales v. Planned<BR>>> Parenthood,
05-1382.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
=======================================================<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>>>
=======================================================<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>>
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?<BR>>> Check out
new cars at Yahoo!
Autos.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
=======================================================<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>>>
=======================================================<BR>><BR>><BR>>>=======================================================<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>>>=======================================================<BR>><BR>>
_________________________________________________________________<BR>>
Interest Rates NEAR 39yr LOWS! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,299/mo - <BR>>
Calculate<BR>> new payment<BR>>
http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-19132&moid=14888<BR>><BR>>
=======================================================<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>>
=======================================================<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>
-- <BR>> No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>> Checked by AVG
Free Edition.<BR>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 -
Release Date: 4/19/2007 <BR>> 5:32 AM<BR>><BR>>
<BR><BR>=======================================================<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>=======================================================<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>