Thursday, February 02, 2006

Those of us who oppose the murder of unborn babies still have work to do!  This is the headline for an article published in the Peoria Journal Star on February 1, 2006, page A7—“Courts uphold abortion ruling.”  Two federal “Court of Appeals” courts, one in California and one in New York, ruled that the congressionally passed law outlawing partial birth abortions is unconstitutional.  The California Court is the same one which ruled that “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional.  

Two quotes from the article include the following, “The New York decision affirmed a 2004 ruling by a judge who upheld the right to perform the procedure even as he described the procedure as ‘gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.’”  “The law, signed in 2003, banned a procedure known to doctors as intact dilation and extraction (Reread that phrase a few times.  It is appalling!—my addition) and called partial-birth abortion by abortion foes.  The fetus (unborn baby—my addition) is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.  The procedure is generally performed in the second trimester.”

Note the following: the original judge who ruled the law, passed in 2003 by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress, unconstitutional nevertheless called the procedure which he upheld as legal as “gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.”
The method used to perform the procedure is described in the article as partially removing the baby from the body of the mother and then either puncturing or crushing the skull of the unborn baby.  

This method can be legally used, according to the court ruling, up until the baby is actually developed by the mother.  The skull is “punctured or crushed!”  The procedure is “gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.”  It is also legal according to our activist judges!  

Amendment VIII to the U.S. Constitution declares “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”  No sane judge or Justice in any court in the United States would allow an individual to be punished with a death sentence by puncturing or crushing the skull of that convicted criminal.  Yet, the judges in the two Circuit Courts and the two Appellate Courts have ruled that the puncturing or crushing of the skull of an innocent unborn baby must be permitted.  It must be permitted!!!  Are they insane???

Convicted criminals have Constitutionally protected rights.  Unborn babies have no rights according to our activist judges!!!  Unborn babies may be murdered anyway one chooses to murder them!  Oh, what a choice!!!

Wait.  This 2003 law was not the first time Congress voted to prevent this barbaric, evil, sinful practice.  They did so in the 1990’s also.  If I remember correctly, they did so over the veto of then President “I did not have….” Clinton.

I wrote the following letter to the editor in 1997 and sent it to the Arizona Daily Star.  It was published in April of that year.

Vickie Fisher in her letter to the editor concerning “partial birth abortions” laments “how a ‘medical procedure’ finds its way into legislative halls.”  But, in fact, government regulates medical practices continually from medical school requirements, to licensing practices, to determining what drugs can and can not be legally prescribed.

Secondly, she contends that the “right to privacy provided by the 14th Amendment should have prevented this ban from taking place.”  Since I didn’t recall any “right to privacy” mentioned in the 14th Amendment, I reread it.  It is not there!  Therefore, I reread the entire Constitution from preamble to the final amendment.  No where in the Constitution is a “right to privacy” mentioned let alone guaranteed.

Therefore, such a right must have been manufactured by the Supreme Court by Constitutional interpretation.  “The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.”  However, along with that is the concept that a law passed by a legislative body is Constitutional until ruled otherwise.  Consequently, unless Ms. Fischer is now on the Supreme Court, she does not yet know if it is unconstitutional.  Only nine Justices will ultimately know.

Finally, does this “right to privacy” mean that a child can be abused outside of the womb?  If not, when does the “right to privacy” to murder a child within the womb end?  If a child is partially delivered, can the mother in the name of “right to privacy” reach down and take the child’s life as long as the child is not completely delivered?  Scary!  But, then, claiming the right to murder your child in the womb is scary too!                


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the informative information - I enjoyed reading it! I always enjoy this blog. :) Cheers,

5:15 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home