Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Commentary on the abortion decision, Part 2

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

On my last post, I quoted a commentary by Kathleen Parker on the “partial birth abortion” decision by the Supreme Court. Tonight, I continue with a commentary by Ellen Goodman on the same decision and also published by the Peoria Journal Star on page A4 on April 23, 2007. I am changing my format somewhat with this post. Since I believe I will be commenting on each paragraph, I will quote a paragraph from her commentary and then make my comments on that paragraph. My comments will be distinguished by brackets ( [ ] ).

First, to repeat what I have declared over and over again. The 1973 Supreme Court decision to allow women to murder their unborn babies is the worst Supreme Court decision in American history. No court, no person, no body of people, no government has the power to give anyone the right to murder another person. There is absolutely nothing in the United States Constitution or its Amendments that would allow such an obscene ruling by the Court. The Court usurped the power of the Court and rewrote the Constitution of the United States illegally. Every Supreme Court Justice who supported that pagan decision should have been impeached and convicted for violating their oath of office. No one has the right to murder an unborn baby!!! No one!!!

“May I remind you what else was happening on the very day in 2003 when Congress passed the partial-birth abortion ban. In Florida, the Legislature passed a law that gave politicians the power to override Terri Schiavo’s wishes and have her feeding tube reinserted.”

[First of all, the only person who ever testified that it was Terry Schiavo’s wish to have her feeding tube removed was Terry Schiavo’s husband. Terry Schiavo never gave any such testimony. Terry Schiavo could not give such testimony. Terry Schiavo was in a coma. Secondly, it is the responsibility of the legislature to pass laws. Therefore, whether or not you agree with the law, it was within their prerogative to do so. But, of course, the implication from this paragraph is that somehow Terry Schiavo’s rights were violated and the Florida Legislature did not have the authority to pass such a law.]
“May I also remind you of the day President Bush signed the partial-birth abortion ban into law. The photo op had him surrounded by an all-male chorus line of legislators. These men were proudly governing something they never had: a womb.”

[What utter nonsense! First, the Congress was dealing with a method used to murder an unborn baby. The Congress had every right to pass such legislation. In fact, it is their duty to do so because it is their duty to protect the lives of United States citizens. Isn’t that an interesting theory that she is putting forward. Because men don’t have a womb they can not legislate in that area. Does that mean that only men can legislate in relation to rape (assuming, of course, that only men can commit rape which is not true)? Obviously, the statement does not allow for victims to have a say in the matter because, in fact, no unborn child has ever been allowed to testify that they are opposed to their murders by their mothers or the consenting doctors. Congress is not governing the womb; the Congress is governing the method used to murder the unborn child who occupies the womb just as GOD intended unborn babies to occupy the womb. Finally, she seems to ignore that women also oppose the murder of unborn babies just as some men approve of the practice because it relieves them of responsibility. Guess what, all nine members of the Supreme Court were men. So, the majority of men on the Court said women could be murderers and thus without repentance condemn themselves before GOD.]

“What a long and wounding debate this has been. The moment this procedure was dubbed ‘partial-birth abortion,’ pro-lifers won the public-relations war. They took women out of the picture, literally. The line drawings that illustrated congressional hearings often showed a headless woman bearing a perfect, healthy baby of six months’ or more gestation. Their words not only described a procedure that was indeed gruesome, they portrayed these invisible women as amoral—women who choose abortion to fit into a prom dress.

[Of course, there never should have been any debate because there never should have been a Court decision to permit the murder of unborn babies. Isn’t it interesting though that she paints the battle as a “public-relations war.” But then, that is in reality the attitude of the libertine baby murderers. If we lie often and long enough, we can actually convince some weak willed individuals that it is acceptable to murder unborn babies. Wait, she admits that a partial birth abortion is “indeed gruesome”! Did she forget to proof read her lies and accidentally let that truth slip in? By the way, murdering your unborn baby is not amoral; it is immoral!!!]

“When President Clinton vetoed the ban, he surrounded himself with women who had been through pregnancies that came with an awful vocabulary: words such as hydrocephalus and polyhydramnios. Those women and their ‘prom dates’—obstetricians and gynecologists—asked for only one exception to the ban. They wanted an exception for serious health risks.”

[To be remembered by every person who supports the end of the murder of our unborn babies: President Clinton vetoed the bill passed in the 1990’s to stop this obscene method of murder. Do you know what hydrocephalus or polyhydramnios is? I didn’t. I had to look them up. Actually, I couldn’t find polyhydramnios and my spell check said there was no such word. “Hydrocephalus, term used for potentially serious increases in the volume of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) within the ventricles of the brain. In infants, since their skull plates have not fused, it causes enlargement of the head, and there is risk of brain damage from CSF pressure on the developing brain.” (“Hydrocephalus”. Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.) What? This is a health problem for the baby not for the mother? For polyhydramnios, the best I could do since I left my medical dictionary in Tucson before my move is to break down the portions of the word. “Poly: several, many.” “Hydr: the names of acids without oxygen in the molecule have the prefix hydr.” “Amnios (amniocentesis): a test performed to determine the health, sex, or genetic constitution of a fetus (unborn baby—my addition) by taking a sample of amniotic fluid through a needle inserted into the womb of the mother.” (Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.) Is this another health problem for the baby or a health problem for the mother? Maybe, you could contact Ms. Goodman to find out what it means? Anyway, note what has not been said. No where does she declare that these women had a partial-birth abortion which was the only way the woman’s life could be saved. In fact, she does not even say that any of them had any abortion at all. As I’ve said, the health issue is a “straw man” argument used to try to justify all abortions for every reason. The vast majority of abortions have absolutely nothing to do with the health of the mother. The last problem is who defines “serious health problem”? The doctor? His profession is to murder unborn babies. Will he say anything is a serious health problem so that the abortion occurs? Remember, a doctor does not have to be consulted to murder an unborn baby. All a mother has to do is walk into a Planned Murderhood clinic and say remove this baby and the baby is removed. That’s suppose to be Constitutional even if immoral! Also remember what Kathleen Parker wrote, “But in no single court case were doctors able to demonstrate that partial-birth abortion was ever a medical necessity. Instead, all arguments were in the realm of the hypothetical. Indeed, the majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on the healthy babies of healthy women. Meanwhile, other alternatives are available that are safe for the mother, if no less unpleasant for the fetus.” (If no less murderously fatal for the unborn baby—my addition.)]

“In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law by 5-4 because it didn’t have such a health exception. The court called it an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion. Nevertheless, in 2003, Congress passed the law directly confronting that ruling. Now women are again among the disappeared. On Wednesday, a new Supreme Court upheld the ban, also by 5-4, proving what a difference the turnover in a justice or two can make.”

[Good for Congress for directly confronting the obscene decision of an obscene Supreme Court! The whole concept of “undue burden” is a bunch of legalistic hogwash. Who knows what an “undue burden” is? Why only the United States Supreme Court. Therefore, to know what an undue burden is a Legislative body has to be able to anticipate the “mind” of the Supreme Court. Since when is that how laws are suppose to be written. The Supreme Court has usurped their role in the federal system and we as a nation are reaping the unholy consequences of it. “Do not be deceived: GOD cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.” Galatians 6: 7 (NIV) “Now women are again among the disappeared” is such a ridiculous, bold faced lie that I’m not going to even respond to such nonsense. She is right about one thing: the membership of the Supreme Court is extremely important. We absolutely must continue to elect Presidential candidates and Senatorial candidates who will appoint and approve strict constructionists to all court positions.]

“For many years, Sandra Day O’Connor kept an uneasy peace in the court, maybe the country. She upheld Roe v. Wade while allowing states to regulate abortion as long as they didn’t place an undue burden on a woman’s right to decide. In many ways, the first justice who had ever been pregnant defined which burdens were ‘undue.’ She said it was an undue burden to ban any procedure without a health exception. She said that if there was any disagreement among doctors about safety, it was to be decided in favor of the woman’s health.”

[Her paragraph proves that Justice O’Connor was not a moderate on the Supreme Court. It also demonstrates the obscene power one non-elected Supreme Court Justice can have. She did not “keep an uneasy peace”. She maintained the lie of an obscene Supreme Court decision—a decision that never should have been reached and a decision that should be changed as soon as possible. Stop the Murder of Unborn Toddlers!!! Any disagree by one doctor and Justice O’Connor approved the murder of an unborn baby by what ever means! Obscene! Thankfully she is now gone from the scene!]

“But the new court majority has decided something quite different. In an opinion tortured by an attempt to deny what he was doing—overturning a precedent—Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that since only a small minority of women seeking abortions would be affected and since there was another possible procedure, the ban was constitutional.”

[The new majority fortunately is correct! Justice Kennedy wrote a tortured opinion? Of course, that is her analysis which just may not be true. In truth, the ban is inherently Constitutional because the murder of unborn babies is inherently unconstitutional. Isn’t it interesting though that she doesn’t seem to believe that the method used to murder the unborn baby is in any way torture. Does it seem as if the baby murderers believe that babies can not feel pain while any part of the baby is within the womb but once out side of the womb they magically have the ability to feel pain? Oh wait, maybe the ability for a baby to feel pain evolves over a period of days, weeks, and years after he has been delivered from the womb. What do you think?]

“Writing for the majority, Kennedy said it was fine for the politicians to make medical decisions, fine to eliminate health exceptions, fine to overturn precedent. He even pretended to leave the door ajar for individual suits by women in the midst of a pregnancy crisis. From where? Her hospital bed, or perhaps her gurney?” (What melodramatic nonsense—my addition!)

[The five members of the Court got it right. Congress has every right to regulate this procedure. They regulate medical issues all the time. Should medical doctors write the laws in relation to medical practice? Have they been elected to Congress to do that? Should farmers write the laws in relation to farm practices? Have they been elected to Congress to do that? Should automobile manufacturers write the laws in relation to automobiles? Have they been elected to Congress to do that? Should murderers write the laws in relation to murder? Have they been elected to Congress to do that?]

“When Samuel Alito was a Justice wannabe to replace O’Connor, he reassured lawmakers he’d respect precedent on abortion. When John Roberts talked about his reverence for both precedence and the court, he said he got a ‘lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps.’ That lump in his throat is now a chill up my spine.”

[Actually, I don’t remember Justice Alito reassuring “lawmakers he’d respect precedent on abortion.” But, if that reassurance was perceived as upholding abortion why did libertine Democrats vote against his confirmation? But then, baby murderers lie! Here is the Encarta definition of precedent: “the doctrine that requires a court to follow decisions of superior or previous courts.” (Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.) What does that mean? It means that if the Supreme Court had been following precedent in 1973, the Court would have never ruled that women could murder their unborn babies. The legal precedent for almost 200 years (1776-1973) was that women could not murder their unborn babies. It was, in fact, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that did not follow precedent. The modern version of precedent is only about 34 years old. Following precedent does not mean that horrendous precedent must remain because it is precedent. The Supreme Court in its second worst decision said “once a slave; always a slave.” We fought a bloody civil war to overturn that horrendous precedent. Prayerfully, the Supreme Court will reverse the obscene decision of 1973 before a true calamity falls upon this nation. “Do not be deceived: GOD cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.” Galatians 6: 7 (NIV) Prayerfully, a much greater chill runs up her spine when the Court admits its colossal sin and stops the murder of unborn babies once and for all.]

“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did more than hint at the loss of O’Connor in her blistering opinion for the now-minority. The court opinion ‘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 wrote. ‘The court’s defense of it (the ban) cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court.’”

[“In 1971 she (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—my addition) helped launch the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and served as the ACLU’s general counsel from 1973 to 1980. Between 1973 and 1976 she argued six cases on women’s rights before the Supreme Court, winning five of them.” (Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.) Since the ACLU was the organization that pushed the Court cases that sought to allow the murder of unborn babies, do you think she just might have been involved in these obscene cases in the 1970’s? If she was, then she was involved in helping to establish the obscene precedents she is now lamenting that the new Court is not following. As stated before, there can never be a right to murder your unborn baby. Not only should these Court decisions be chipped away at; they should be reversed and ended!!! To be remembered by every person who supports the end of the murder of our unborn babies: President Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993. She is now continuing her desire to murder unborn babies thanks to the appointment made by President Clinton.]

“As of last week, women whose pregnancies come with alarming words and dangerous diagnoses live in a world that is a little less legal and a lot less safe.”

[The legal provisions have changed but by definition they can not be less legal. The Supreme Court is not suppose to make law. Congress is suppose to make law. That is exactly what they did. Good for them! It has not been shown to be less safe except in the fantasy world of baby murderers. People who believe it is proper to murder unborn babies certainly will not hesitate to lie about it!!! The proof is in the commentary!!!]


Post a Comment

<< Home