Science > Abortion > 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Unconstitutional.
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"LeMod Pol" |
| Date: |
27 Aug 2004 09:04:49 AM |
| Object: |
2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Unconstitutional. |
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act unconstitutional.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
Associated Press
NEW YORK - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday in the
second such ruling in three months -- even though he
called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.''
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey -- one of three
federal judges across the country to hear simultaneous
challenges to the law earlier this year -- faulted the
ban for not containing an exception to protect a
woman's health, something the Supreme Court has made
clear is required in laws prohibiting particular types
of abortion.
The law, signed in November, banned a procedure known
to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called
partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetes is
partially removed from the womb, and the skull is
punctured or crushed.
Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive
Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the
ruling: ``We can only hope as we have decision after
decision after decision striking these bans, saying
they endanger women's health, that the legislatures
will finally stop.''
On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San
Francisco also found the law unconstitutional, saying
it violates a woman's right to choose an abortion. A
judge in Lincoln, Neb., has yet to rule. The three
judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.
The three verdicts are almost certain to be appealed to
the Supreme Court.
''We are in the process of the appeal of these issues
now, which tells you exactly what we're doing and where
we're going,'' Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday.
The ban, which President Clinton twice vetoed, was seen
by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure
from the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade. But the Bush
administration has argued that the procedure is cruel
and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.
At trials earlier this year, doctors testified that of
1.3 million abortions performed annually, the law would
affect about 130,000. Some observers suggest the number
would be much lower -- 2,200 to 5,000.
In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that
the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He
said the Supreme Court had made it clear that ``this
gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists
a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in
which any women could potentially benefit from it.''
At another point, Casey wrote that testimony put before
himself and Congress showed the outlawed abortion
technique to be a ``gruesome, brutal, barbaric and
uncivilized medical procedure.''
Casey, who was appointed to the bench by Clinton in
1997, was considered by some observers to be the best
legal hope for the law's supporters.
''The judge was very aggressive in his questioning and
very transparent in his articulation of his personal
views on the matter,'' said Gloria Feldt, president of
Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
``Fortunately, he chose to uphold the law.''
Copyright 2004 Knight Ridder
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
.
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
28 Aug 2004 01:45:14 PM |
|
|
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:4130C605.197BE0D2@igs.net...
Johnny wrote:
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7LMXc.8779$QJ3.8386@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
"... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
particular types of abortion."
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act unconstitutional.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing
Republicans
in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title in
the
campaign.
That was not the law's purpose, liar.
How would you know, littler johnny?
All you haev to do is READ the law itself.
How many cases
have you argued in any federal appeals court??
I could argue many of them. Being admitted to argue cases in Federal Appeals
Court is something that is controlled.
The law's purpose was to OUTLAW Partial Birth Abortions and to imprison
any
person who trasngressed the law for two years.
Read the LAW, STUPID!
I did and noted that Congress deliberately omitted the
mothers health protection clause thus rendering the
whole act invalid. Thus protecting the President's
2000 pledge, without in fact impacting on the practise
of medicine.
That was cited many times in the initial arguments and you are not correct.
The section which allowed an abortion to protect the life of the mother was
included.
Where did you get your law degree, kid?
Not from LAMEBRAIN U.
Where did you get yours?
From DEWEY DECEIVE (CHEATHAM) and HOME?
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
But your policy is not one of moderation. It is extreme.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
28 Aug 2004 06:51:59 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:12:59 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<XE_Xc.37459$%n4.33734@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7LMXc.8779$QJ3.8386@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
"... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
particular types of abortion."
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act unconstitutional.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing
Republicans
in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title in the
campaign.
That was not the law's purpose, liar.
The law's purpose was to OUTLAW Partial Birth Abortions and to imprison any
person who trasngressed the law for two years.
Read the LAW, STUPID!
What the law says does not matter. It was obviously unconstitutional
and so far two separate courts have said this. The entire bill was
political.
Only a Constitutional Amendment is legal here.
The purpose of the law was written into LAW and made law by the President.
The lower court judges are neglecting the duty as judges to rule according
to law.
Not is their opinions, and since the only opinions that count are the
opinions of higher level judges that leaves you out.
NEW YORK - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday in the
second such ruling in three months -- even though he
called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.''
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey -- one of three
federal judges across the country to hear simultaneous
challenges to the law earlier this year -- faulted the
ban for not containing an exception to protect a
woman's health, something the Supreme Court has made
clear is required in laws prohibiting particular types
of abortion.
The law, signed in November, banned a procedure known
to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called
partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetes is
partially removed from the womb, and the skull is
punctured or crushed.
Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive
Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the
ruling: ``We can only hope as we have decision after
decision after decision striking these bans, saying
they endanger women's health, that the legislatures
will finally stop.''
On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San
Francisco also found the law unconstitutional, saying
it violates a woman's right to choose an abortion. A
judge in Lincoln, Neb., has yet to rule. The three
judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.
The three verdicts are almost certain to be appealed to
the Supreme Court.
''We are in the process of the appeal of these issues
now, which tells you exactly what we're doing and where
we're going,'' Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday.
The ban, which President Clinton twice vetoed, was seen
by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure
from the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade. But the Bush
administration has argued that the procedure is cruel
and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.
At trials earlier this year, doctors testified that of
1.3 million abortions performed annually, the law would
affect about 130,000. Some observers suggest the number
would be much lower -- 2,200 to 5,000.
In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that
the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He
said the Supreme Court had made it clear that ``this
gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists
a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in
which any women could potentially benefit from it.''
At another point, Casey wrote that testimony put before
himself and Congress showed the outlawed abortion
technique to be a ``gruesome, brutal, barbaric and
uncivilized medical procedure.''
Casey, who was appointed to the bench by Clinton in
1997, was considered by some observers to be the best
legal hope for the law's supporters.
''The judge was very aggressive in his questioning and
very transparent in his articulation of his personal
views on the matter,'' said Gloria Feldt, president of
Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
``Fortunately, he chose to uphold the law.''
Copyright 2004 Knight Ridder
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
28 Aug 2004 08:44:55 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:jf62j0d8qejp3tnhonkd152q82vmbofpc4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:12:59 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<XE_Xc.37459$%n4.33734@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7LMXc.8779$QJ3.8386@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
"... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
particular types of abortion."
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act unconstitutional.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing
Republicans
in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title in
the
campaign.
That was not the law's purpose, liar.
The law's purpose was to OUTLAW Partial Birth Abortions and to imprison
any
person who trasngressed the law for two years.
Read the LAW, STUPID!
What the law says does not matter.
So, you are damned.
It was obviously unconstitutional
and so far two separate courts have said this. The entire bill was
political.
Separate?
Two abortionist courts.
Only a Constitutional Amendment is legal here.
*****.
We can attain that.
The purpose of the law was written into LAW and made law by the
President.
The lower court judges are neglecting the duty as judges to rule
according
to law.
Not is their opinions, and since the only opinions that count are the
opinions of higher level judges that leaves you out.
Opinions are NOT LAW god damned baby killing junkie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 06:22:19 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:44:55 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<8yaYc.39471$%n4.34835@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:jf62j0d8qejp3tnhonkd152q82vmbofpc4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:12:59 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<XE_Xc.37459$%n4.33734@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7LMXc.8779$QJ3.8386@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
"... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
particular types of abortion."
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act unconstitutional.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing
Republicans
in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title in
the
campaign.
That was not the law's purpose, liar.
The law's purpose was to OUTLAW Partial Birth Abortions and to imprison
any
person who trasngressed the law for two years.
Read the LAW, STUPID!
What the law says does not matter.
So, you are damned.
What does that mean?
It was obviously unconstitutional
and so far two separate courts have said this. The entire bill was
political.
Separate?
Two abortionist courts.
I see. Any court that supports the freedom of choice is an
abortionist court. I suppose any court that does not support such a
freedom would be a Free Court of the People or some such?
Only a Constitutional Amendment is legal here.
*****.
We can attain that.
But it has not even come close in over 30 years. And with the
advances in medicine that so far have produced the morning after pills
and RU486 the entire point will become moot in the future.
The purpose of the law was written into LAW and made law by the
President.
The lower court judges are neglecting the duty as judges to rule
according
to law.
Not is their opinions, and since the only opinions that count are the
opinions of higher level judges that leaves you out.
Opinions are NOT LAW god damned baby killing junkie.
The opinions of courts as formalized into decisions are case law and
are an important and large part of the overall legal system. They are
frequently more 'legal' than enacted laws from representatives since
they have had at least one legal test.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 01:05:29 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:uoe3j0l3nq7pmrjtv6sr51pqc0pqeg8oqp@4ax.com...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:44:55 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<8yaYc.39471$%n4.34835@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:jf62j0d8qejp3tnhonkd152q82vmbofpc4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:12:59 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<XE_Xc.37459$%n4.33734@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7LMXc.8779$QJ3.8386@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
"... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
particular types of abortion."
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act unconstitutional.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing
Republicans
in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title in
the
campaign.
That was not the law's purpose, liar.
The law's purpose was to OUTLAW Partial Birth Abortions and to
imprison
any
person who trasngressed the law for two years.
Read the LAW, STUPID!
What the law says does not matter.
So, you are damned.
What does that mean?
It was obviously unconstitutional
and so far two separate courts have said this. The entire bill was
political.
Separate?
Two abortionist courts.
I see. Any court that supports the freedom of choice is an
abortionist court.
You missed. THIS IS ABOUT THE PBA BAN!
I suppose any court that does not support such a
freedom would be a Free Court of the People or some such?
PBA BAN IS WHAT THIS LAW FORBADE!
Only a Constitutional Amendment is legal here.
*****.
We can attain that.
But it has not even come close in over 30 years. And with the
advances in medicine that so far have produced the morning after pills
and RU486 the entire point will become moot in the future.
SURGICAL ABORTION AND PBA IS NOT RU-486.
The purpose of the law was written into LAW and made law by the
President.
The lower court judges are neglecting the duty as judges to rule
according
to law.
Not is their opinions, and since the only opinions that count are the
opinions of higher level judges that leaves you out.
Opinions are NOT LAW god damned baby killing junkie.
The opinions of courts as formalized into decisions are case law and
are an important and large part of the overall legal system. They are
frequently more 'legal' than enacted laws from representatives since
they have had at least one legal test.
We are very far behind more developed nations than us already and we are
losing even more ground to them as you who are for killing children on
demand per choice via surgical methods are allowed to have your way.
Well, this nation had a Burger King in it, not Burger Prince.
So shut up little Princehead of darkness and let a King rule.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 05:21:53 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:05:29 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<f1oYc.42965$cx.24470@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:uoe3j0l3nq7pmrjtv6sr51pqc0pqeg8oqp@4ax.com...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:44:55 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<8yaYc.39471$%n4.34835@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:jf62j0d8qejp3tnhonkd152q82vmbofpc4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:12:59 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<XE_Xc.37459$%n4.33734@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7LMXc.8779$QJ3.8386@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
"... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
particular types of abortion."
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act unconstitutional.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing
Republicans
in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title in
the
campaign.
That was not the law's purpose, liar.
The law's purpose was to OUTLAW Partial Birth Abortions and to
imprison
any
person who trasngressed the law for two years.
Read the LAW, STUPID!
What the law says does not matter.
So, you are damned.
What does that mean?
It was obviously unconstitutional
and so far two separate courts have said this. The entire bill was
political.
Separate?
Two abortionist courts.
I see. Any court that supports the freedom of choice is an
abortionist court.
You missed. THIS IS ABOUT THE PBA BAN!
Which two courts have declared Unconstitutional. So far.
I suppose any court that does not support such a
freedom would be a Free Court of the People or some such?
PBA BAN IS WHAT THIS LAW FORBADE!
And in doing so violated the COnstitution.
Only a Constitutional Amendment is legal here.
*****.
We can attain that.
But it has not even come close in over 30 years. And with the
advances in medicine that so far have produced the morning after pills
and RU486 the entire point will become moot in the future.
SURGICAL ABORTION AND PBA IS NOT RU-486.
No, but it's existence reduces the number of abortions needed.
The purpose of the law was written into LAW and made law by the
President.
The lower court judges are neglecting the duty as judges to rule
according
to law.
Not is their opinions, and since the only opinions that count are the
opinions of higher level judges that leaves you out.
Opinions are NOT LAW god damned baby killing junkie.
The opinions of courts as formalized into decisions are case law and
are an important and large part of the overall legal system. They are
frequently more 'legal' than enacted laws from representatives since
they have had at least one legal test.
We are very far behind more developed nations than us already and we are
losing even more ground to them as you who are for killing children on
demand per choice via surgical methods are allowed to have your way.
No children are killed in an abortion.
Well, this nation had a Burger King in it, not Burger Prince.
So shut up little Princehead of darkness and let a King rule.
That makes no sense. How can Burger King rule the country when we
have no king and they are having a hard time competing with Wendy's
and McDonalds?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 07:55:26 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:chl4j09clcupn7pv2s6bcmia1f35uimin1@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:05:29 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<f1oYc.42965$cx.24470@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:uoe3j0l3nq7pmrjtv6sr51pqc0pqeg8oqp@4ax.com...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:44:55 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<8yaYc.39471$%n4.34835@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:jf62j0d8qejp3tnhonkd152q82vmbofpc4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:12:59 -0400, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<XE_Xc.37459$%n4.33734@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7LMXc.8779$QJ3.8386@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
"... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
particular types of abortion."
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act unconstitutional.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing
Republicans
in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title
in
the
campaign.
That was not the law's purpose, liar.
The law's purpose was to OUTLAW Partial Birth Abortions and to
imprison
any
person who trasngressed the law for two years.
Read the LAW, STUPID!
What the law says does not matter.
So, you are damned.
What does that mean?
It was obviously unconstitutional
and so far two separate courts have said this. The entire bill was
political.
Separate?
Two abortionist courts.
I see. Any court that supports the freedom of choice is an
abortionist court.
You missed. THIS IS ABOUT THE PBA BAN!
Which two courts have declared Unconstitutional. So far.
Which does not apply to all Districts. Remember the part about "in law" that
the Courts duties are prescribed by Congress.
I suppose any court that does not support such a
freedom would be a Free Court of the People or some such?
PBA BAN IS WHAT THIS LAW FORBADE!
And in doing so violated the COnstitution.
No, it didn't. You are citing OPINION!
Not law.
Only a Constitutional Amendment is legal here.
*****.
We can attain that.
But it has not even come close in over 30 years. And with the
advances in medicine that so far have produced the morning after pills
and RU486 the entire point will become moot in the future.
SURGICAL ABORTION AND PBA IS NOT RU-486.
No, but it's existence reduces the number of abortions needed.
The purpose of the law was written into LAW and made law by the
President.
The lower court judges are neglecting the duty as judges to rule
according
to law.
Not is their opinions, and since the only opinions that count are
the
opinions of higher level judges that leaves you out.
Opinions are NOT LAW god damned baby killing junkie.
The opinions of courts as formalized into decisions are case law and
are an important and large part of the overall legal system. They are
frequently more 'legal' than enacted laws from representatives since
they have had at least one legal test.
We are very far behind more developed nations than us already and we are
losing even more ground to them as you who are for killing children on
demand per choice via surgical methods are allowed to have your way.
No children are killed in an abortion.
Your lie?
Well, this nation had a Burger King in it, not Burger Prince.
So shut up little Princehead of darkness and let a King rule.
That makes no sense. How can Burger King rule the country when we
have no king and they are having a hard time competing with Wendy's
and McDonalds?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 07:20:18 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:55:26 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1uYc.44312$cx.40353@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
You missed. THIS IS ABOUT THE PBA BAN!
Which two courts have declared Unconstitutional. So far.
Which does not apply to all Districts. Remember the part about "in law" that
the Courts duties are prescribed by Congress.
True, but it appears to be suspended everywhere until the court
rulings are complete.
I suppose any court that does not support such a
freedom would be a Free Court of the People or some such?
PBA BAN IS WHAT THIS LAW FORBADE!
And in doing so violated the COnstitution.
No, it didn't. You are citing OPINION!
Not law.
The opinion of the courts, which IS law.
We are very far behind more developed nations than us already and we are
losing even more ground to them as you who are for killing children on
demand per choice via surgical methods are allowed to have your way.
No children are killed in an abortion.
Your lie?
No.
Well, this nation had a Burger King in it, not Burger Prince.
So shut up little Princehead of darkness and let a King rule.
That makes no sense. How can Burger King rule the country when we
have no king and they are having a hard time competing with Wendy's
and McDonalds?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 10:54:59 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:gis4j01eonknq8mmd93chjgv7uvu6v40r7@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:55:26 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1uYc.44312$cx.40353@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
You missed. THIS IS ABOUT THE PBA BAN!
Which two courts have declared Unconstitutional. So far.
Which does not apply to all Districts. Remember the part about "in law"
that
the Courts duties are prescribed by Congress.
True, but it appears to be suspended everywhere until the court
rulings are complete.
I suppose any court that does not support such a
freedom would be a Free Court of the People or some such?
PBA BAN IS WHAT THIS LAW FORBADE!
And in doing so violated the COnstitution.
No, it didn't. You are citing OPINION!
Not law.
The opinion of the courts, which IS law.
Wrong. The legislature makes law, not the Courts. PERIOD!
That is how our government is supposed to work. The legislative branch si
charged with making the laws. The President can veto any law he does not
like, and he has the line item veto now.
The Courts are charged with ruling according to the law.
We are very far behind more developed nations than us already and we
are
losing even more ground to them as you who are for killing children on
demand per choice via surgical methods are allowed to have your way.
No children are killed in an abortion.
Your lie?
No.
Your misconception?
Well, this nation had a Burger King in it, not Burger Prince.
So shut up little Princehead of darkness and let a King rule.
That makes no sense. How can Burger King rule the country when we
have no king and they are having a hard time competing with Wendy's
and McDonalds?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
30 Aug 2004 07:49:07 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:54:59 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<TFwYc.45163$cx.22169@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:gis4j01eonknq8mmd93chjgv7uvu6v40r7@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:55:26 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1uYc.44312$cx.40353@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
You missed. THIS IS ABOUT THE PBA BAN!
Which two courts have declared Unconstitutional. So far.
Which does not apply to all Districts. Remember the part about "in law"
that
the Courts duties are prescribed by Congress.
True, but it appears to be suspended everywhere until the court
rulings are complete.
I suppose any court that does not support such a
freedom would be a Free Court of the People or some such?
PBA BAN IS WHAT THIS LAW FORBADE!
And in doing so violated the COnstitution.
No, it didn't. You are citing OPINION!
Not law.
The opinion of the courts, which IS law.
Wrong. The legislature makes law, not the Courts. PERIOD!
Correct.
That is how our government is supposed to work. The legislative branch si
charged with making the laws. The President can veto any law he does not
like
And COngress can override that veto with enough votes.
, and he has the line item veto now.
No, That was declared Unconstitutional
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/line_item_veto.html
The Courts are charged with ruling according to the law.
Agreed, but that includes whether a particular law conflicts with a
higher law.
We are very far behind more developed nations than us already and we
are
losing even more ground to them as you who are for killing children on
demand per choice via surgical methods are allowed to have your way.
No children are killed in an abortion.
Your lie?
No.
Your misconception?
No. Birth is required for a child to exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
30 Aug 2004 10:55:14 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:9786j0t3a1n9mrhj13jr3af0bms1ike056@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:54:59 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<TFwYc.45163$cx.22169@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:gis4j01eonknq8mmd93chjgv7uvu6v40r7@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:55:26 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1uYc.44312$cx.40353@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
You missed. THIS IS ABOUT THE PBA BAN!
Which two courts have declared Unconstitutional. So far.
Which does not apply to all Districts. Remember the part about "in
law"
that
the Courts duties are prescribed by Congress.
True, but it appears to be suspended everywhere until the court
rulings are complete.
I suppose any court that does not support such a
freedom would be a Free Court of the People or some such?
PBA BAN IS WHAT THIS LAW FORBADE!
And in doing so violated the COnstitution.
No, it didn't. You are citing OPINION!
Not law.
The opinion of the courts, which IS law.
Wrong. The legislature makes law, not the Courts. PERIOD!
Correct.
That is how our government is supposed to work. The legislative branch si
charged with making the laws. The President can veto any law he does not
like
And COngress can override that veto with enough votes.
, and he has the line item veto now.
No, That was declared Unconstitutional
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/line_item_veto.html
Did CLinton have it?
I wsa not aware they declard it illegal.
Sorry, but I do not get lost in the details as so many like to do to the
people of this nation with their obfuscation and non-homogenous mixture of
laws in this nation.
The Courts are charged with ruling according to the law.
Agreed, but that includes whether a particular law conflicts with a
higher law.
You still haven;t read and understood all the writings yet?
The PBa ban does not conflict with a higher law.
It only conflicts with abortion doctors who make money performing late term
abortions and women and men who want their child killed.
Selective breeding is not a good approach to preservign life in the USA.
We are very far behind more developed nations than us already and
we
are
losing even more ground to them as you who are for killing children
on
demand per choice via surgical methods are allowed to have your
way.
No children are killed in an abortion.
Your lie?
No.
Your misconception?
No. Birth is required for a child to exist.
Your lie? Your opinion?
Your misconception.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
30 Aug 2004 04:31:23 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:55:14 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<EcHYc.40821$N11.6188@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:9786j0t3a1n9mrhj13jr3af0bms1ike056@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:54:59 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<TFwYc.45163$cx.22169@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:gis4j01eonknq8mmd93chjgv7uvu6v40r7@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:55:26 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1uYc.44312$cx.40353@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
You missed. THIS IS ABOUT THE PBA BAN!
Which two courts have declared Unconstitutional. So far.
Which does not apply to all Districts. Remember the part about "in
law"
that
the Courts duties are prescribed by Congress.
True, but it appears to be suspended everywhere until the court
rulings are complete.
I suppose any court that does not support such a
freedom would be a Free Court of the People or some such?
PBA BAN IS WHAT THIS LAW FORBADE!
And in doing so violated the COnstitution.
No, it didn't. You are citing OPINION!
Not law.
The opinion of the courts, which IS law.
Wrong. The legislature makes law, not the Courts. PERIOD!
Correct.
That is how our government is supposed to work. The legislative branch si
charged with making the laws. The President can veto any law he does not
like
And COngress can override that veto with enough votes.
, and he has the line item veto now.
No, That was declared Unconstitutional
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/line_item_veto.html
Did CLinton have it?
He tried, and was overturned.
I wsa not aware they declard it illegal.
Sorry, but I do not get lost in the details as so many like to do to the
people of this nation with their obfuscation and non-homogenous mixture of
laws in this nation.
No, you are just ignorant and don't bother to check what you say.
Everyone makes errors but you seem to make a habit of it.
The Courts are charged with ruling according to the law.
Agreed, but that includes whether a particular law conflicts with a
higher law.
You still haven;t read and understood all the writings yet?
The PBa ban does not conflict with a higher law.
It does according to two federal courts. So far.
And since their opinion actually counts for something (unlike your's)
I know where my support is located.
It only conflicts with abortion doctors who make money performing late term
abortions and women and men who want their child killed.
No child is killed in an abortion and abortions are not performed as a
excess profit industry. Much more is made if the woman stays
pregnant.
Selective breeding is not a good approach to preservign life in the USA.
It isn't done, since the freedom of choice is available to every
pregnant woman.
We are very far behind more developed nations than us already and
we
are
losing even more ground to them as you who are for killing children
on
demand per choice via surgical methods are allowed to have your
way.
No children are killed in an abortion.
Your lie?
No.
Your misconception?
No. Birth is required for a child to exist.
Your lie? Your opinion?
Your misconception.
Birth is required to be a citizen, a tax deduction, to inherit, to own
property, to get a passport, the list goes on and on.
Live birth is required for society to recognize the existence of a
person. That is ingrained in every level of law.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
30 Aug 2004 03:37:35 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:54:59 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:gis4j01eonknq8mmd93chjgv7uvu6v40r7@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:55:26 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1uYc.44312$cx.40353@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
You missed. THIS IS ABOUT THE PBA BAN!
Which two courts have declared Unconstitutional. So far.
Which does not apply to all Districts. Remember the part about "in law"
that
the Courts duties are prescribed by Congress.
True, but it appears to be suspended everywhere until the court
rulings are complete.
I suppose any court that does not support such a
freedom would be a Free Court of the People or some such?
PBA BAN IS WHAT THIS LAW FORBADE!
And in doing so violated the COnstitution.
No, it didn't. You are citing OPINION!
Not law.
The opinion of the courts, which IS law.
Wrong.
When will you learn that you have NO business deciding what other
women should do with their reproductive lives?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
30 Aug 2004 10:51:45 AM |
|
|
"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:app5j0pd43p4tq8tkjieo037dsf6ne36nk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:54:59 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:gis4j01eonknq8mmd93chjgv7uvu6v40r7@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:55:26 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1uYc.44312$cx.40353@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
You missed. THIS IS ABOUT THE PBA BAN!
Which two courts have declared Unconstitutional. So far.
Which does not apply to all Districts. Remember the part about "in
law"
that
the Courts duties are prescribed by Congress.
True, but it appears to be suspended everywhere until the court
rulings are complete.
I suppose any court that does not support such a
freedom would be a Free Court of the People or some such?
PBA BAN IS WHAT THIS LAW FORBADE!
And in doing so violated the COnstitution.
No, it didn't. You are citing OPINION!
Not law.
The opinion of the courts, which IS law.
Wrong.
When will you learn that you have NO business deciding what other
women should do with their reproductive lives?
DAMN!
I didn't. The President and Congress decided that PBA is illegal when the
life of the mother is not at risk.
Abortion is NOT reproductive anyway *****.
PBAs being illegal has zero to do with women's reproductive lives.
PERIOD!
.
|
|
|
| User: "somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
30 Aug 2004 09:39:22 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:51:45 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:app5j0pd43p4tq8tkjieo037dsf6ne36nk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:54:59 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:gis4j01eonknq8mmd93chjgv7uvu6v40r7@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:55:26 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1uYc.44312$cx.40353@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
You missed. THIS IS ABOUT THE PBA BAN!
Which two courts have declared Unconstitutional. So far.
Which does not apply to all Districts. Remember the part about "in
law"
that
the Courts duties are prescribed by Congress.
True, but it appears to be suspended everywhere until the court
rulings are complete.
I suppose any court that does not support such a
freedom would be a Free Court of the People or some such?
PBA BAN IS WHAT THIS LAW FORBADE!
And in doing so violated the COnstitution.
No, it didn't. You are citing OPINION!
Not law.
The opinion of the courts, which IS law.
Wrong.
When will you learn that you have NO business deciding what other
women should do with their reproductive lives?
DAMN!
I didn't. The President and Congress decided that PBA...
A fictous procedure. What these assholes tried whole-heartedly to ban
(partial birth abortion, a dysphemism for D&X) a procedure which is
only used to terminate a life threatening pregnancy. It's not
performed electively, legally.
Folks like you are a pack of sorry control freaks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
31 Aug 2004 12:01:00 AM |
|
|
"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:vmo7j0h6h9uipu2o1brk97cj4mmdkekb5r@4ax.com...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:51:45 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:app5j0pd43p4tq8tkjieo037dsf6ne36nk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:54:59 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:gis4j01eonknq8mmd93chjgv7uvu6v40r7@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:55:26 -0500, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1uYc.44312$cx.40353@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
You missed. THIS IS ABOUT THE PBA BAN!
Which two courts have declared Unconstitutional. So far.
Which does not apply to all Districts. Remember the part about "in
law"
that
the Courts duties are prescribed by Congress.
True, but it appears to be suspended everywhere until the court
rulings are complete.
I suppose any court that does not support such a
freedom would be a Free Court of the People or some such?
PBA BAN IS WHAT THIS LAW FORBADE!
And in doing so violated the COnstitution.
No, it didn't. You are citing OPINION!
Not law.
The opinion of the courts, which IS law.
Wrong.
When will you learn that you have NO business deciding what other
women should do with their reproductive lives?
DAMN!
I didn't. The President and Congress decided that PBA...
A fictous procedure. What these assholes tried whole-heartedly to ban
(partial birth abortion, a dysphemism for D&X) a procedure which is
only used to terminate a life threatening pregnancy. It's not
performed electively, legally.
Doctors can not choose to perform the procedure?
Doctors can not tell a woman, "You need to have an abortion."
And, then they charge how much to do it?
Why do you like them killing children, shipping the bodies to ABR, Inc.,
then selling them to STEM to disintegrate into injectable masses to place
into the bodies fo rats?
Folks like you are a pack of sorry control freaks.
No true.
The abortion lobby and the fetal body/body parts merchants are the control
freaks.
You do not see the control as I do.
I see the entire setup as corralling women into the for-profit money
grubbing elitist sex and abortion industry.
Why don;t you separate the abortion industry and its branches from the rest
of society because, to be honest with you, it is not a part of the entire
nation.
It is sectarian and it is not practiced by so many of our people that it is
not such a thing that it can be attributed to our entire society.
Our society is Pro-Choice by law, not by choice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
31 Aug 2004 06:00:40 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:01:00 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<9JSYc.68013$0o5.35233@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:vmo7j0h6h9uipu2o1brk97cj4mmdkekb5r@4ax.com...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:51:45 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:app5j0pd43p4tq8tkjieo037dsf6ne36nk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:54:59 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:gis4j01eonknq8mmd93chjgv7uvu6v40r7@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:55:26 -0500, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1uYc.44312$cx.40353@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
You missed. THIS IS ABOUT THE PBA BAN!
Which two courts have declared Unconstitutional. So far.
Which does not apply to all Districts. Remember the part about "in
law"
that
the Courts duties are prescribed by Congress.
True, but it appears to be suspended everywhere until the court
rulings are complete.
I suppose any court that does not support such a
freedom would be a Free Court of the People or some such?
PBA BAN IS WHAT THIS LAW FORBADE!
And in doing so violated the COnstitution.
No, it didn't. You are citing OPINION!
Not law.
The opinion of the courts, which IS law.
Wrong.
When will you learn that you have NO business deciding what other
women should do with their reproductive lives?
DAMN!
I didn't. The President and Congress decided that PBA...
A fictous procedure. What these assholes tried whole-heartedly to ban
(partial birth abortion, a dysphemism for D&X) a procedure which is
only used to terminate a life threatening pregnancy. It's not
performed electively, legally.
Doctors can not choose to perform the procedure?
Doctors cannot choose to perform anything. They can only suggest or
recommend.
Doctors can not tell a woman, "You need to have an abortion."
And, then they charge how much to do it?
Of course they can, but any sane person would promptly ask "why".
I doubt trying to drum up business is a factor - this is not a used
car salesman.
Why do you like them killing children,
No children are killed in an abortion.
shipping the bodies to ABR, Inc.,
then selling them to STEM to disintegrate into injectable masses to place
into the bodies fo rats?
You oppose medical research?
Folks like you are a pack of sorry control freaks.
No true.
Of course you are. You are trying to terminate a right held by half
of the population.
The abortion lobby and the fetal body/body parts merchants are the control
freaks.
You do not see the control as I do.
That is one of the few thins you have said with which I agree.
I see the entire setup as corralling women into the for-profit money
grubbing elitist sex and abortion industry.
Now that is funny. Do you seriously think the medical personnel
involved could not make more money in mainstream medicine without the
risk of being shot?
Are you not aware these people are indistinguishable from medical
personnel everywhere, and in some cases are the same people you see in
a hospital or medical office?
Why don;t you separate the abortion industry and its branches from the rest
of society because, to be honest with you, it is not a part of the entire
nation.
If it exists (which I dispute) it would be part of the entire country
since the freedom of choice belongs to every woman in the US.
It is sectarian and it is not practiced by so many of our people that it is
not such a thing that it can be attributed to our entire society.
Nothing is practiced by the entire society with no exceptions.
Our society is Pro-Choice by law, not by choice.
Our laws exist because of the choice of the majority.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
31 Aug 2004 04:31:55 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:01:00 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:vmo7j0h6h9uipu2o1brk97cj4mmdkekb5r@4ax.com...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:51:45 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:app5j0pd43p4tq8tkjieo037dsf6ne36nk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:54:59 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:gis4j01eonknq8mmd93chjgv7uvu6v40r7@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:55:26 -0500, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1uYc.44312$cx.40353@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
You missed. THIS IS ABOUT THE PBA BAN!
Which two courts have declared Unconstitutional. So far.
Which does not apply to all Districts. Remember the part about "in
law"
that
the Courts duties are prescribed by Congress.
True, but it appears to be suspended everywhere until the court
rulings are complete.
I suppose any court that does not support such a
freedom would be a Free Court of the People or some such?
PBA BAN IS WHAT THIS LAW FORBADE!
And in doing so violated the COnstitution.
No, it didn't. You are citing OPINION!
Not law.
The opinion of the courts, which IS law.
Wrong.
When will you learn that you have NO business deciding what other
women should do with their reproductive lives?
DAMN!
I didn't. The President and Congress decided that PBA...
A fictous procedure. What these assholes tried whole-heartedly to ban
(partial birth abortion, a dysphemism for D&X) a procedure which is
only used to terminate a life threatening pregnancy. It's not
performed electively, legally.
Doctors can not choose to perform the procedure?
Why would any doctor in his right mind want NOT to preserve a woman's
health and life?
[...]
Folks like you are a pack of sorry control freaks.
No true.
It's true, unfortunately for you.
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
31 Aug 2004 05:50:56 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:39:22 -0400, somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<vmo7j0h6h9uipu2o1brk97cj4mmdkekb5r@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:51:45 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:app5j0pd43p4tq8tkjieo037dsf6ne36nk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:54:59 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:gis4j01eonknq8mmd93chjgv7uvu6v40r7@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:55:26 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1uYc.44312$cx.40353@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
You missed. THIS IS ABOUT THE PBA BAN!
Which two courts have declared Unconstitutional. So far.
Which does not apply to all Districts. Remember the part about "in
law"
that
the Courts duties are prescribed by Congress.
True, but it appears to be suspended everywhere until the court
rulings are complete.
I suppose any court that does not support such a
freedom would be a Free Court of the People or some such?
PBA BAN IS WHAT THIS LAW FORBADE!
And in doing so violated the COnstitution.
No, it didn't. You are citing OPINION!
Not law.
The opinion of the courts, which IS law.
Wrong.
When will you learn that you have NO business deciding what other
women should do with their reproductive lives?
DAMN!
I didn't. The President and Congress decided that PBA...
A fictous procedure. What these assholes tried whole-heartedly to ban
(partial birth abortion, a dysphemism for D&X) a procedure which is
only used to terminate a life threatening pregnancy. It's not
performed electively, legally.
Folks like you are a pack of sorry control freaks.
That is something they don't want to talk about. The fact that the
so-called PBA procedure is a medically recommended procedure for
pregnancies that are very dangerous and in almost every case involving
a fetus that is already dead.
Since this procedure has much more risk to the woman than normal
delivery would no doctor is going to perform it electively.
But it makes goo publicity and makes an opportunity to establish an
anti-abortion bridgehead that can be expanded to include other
procedures and eventually to eliminate abortion completely.
.
|
|
|
| User: "somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
31 Aug 2004 06:39:07 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 06:50:56 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:39:22 -0400, somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<vmo7j0h6h9uipu2o1brk97cj4mmdkekb5r@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:51:45 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:app5j0pd43p4tq8tkjieo037dsf6ne36nk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:54:59 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:gis4j01eonknq8mmd93chjgv7uvu6v40r7@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:55:26 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<y1uYc.44312$cx.40353@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
You missed. THIS IS ABOUT THE PBA BAN!
Which two courts have declared Unconstitutional. So far.
Which does not apply to all Districts. Remember the part about "in
law"
that
the Courts duties are prescribed by Congress.
True, but it appears to be suspended everywhere until the court
rulings are complete.
I suppose any court that does not support such a
freedom would be a Free Court of the People or some such?
PBA BAN IS WHAT THIS LAW FORBADE!
And in doing so violated the COnstitution.
No, it didn't. You are citing OPINION!
Not law.
The opinion of the courts, which IS law.
Wrong.
When will you learn that you have NO business deciding what other
women should do with their reproductive lives?
DAMN!
I didn't. The President and Congress decided that PBA...
A fictous procedure. What these assholes tried whole-heartedly to ban
(partial birth abortion, a dysphemism for D&X) a procedure which is
only used to terminate a life threatening pregnancy. It's not
performed electively, legally.
Folks like you are a pack of sorry control freaks.
That is something they don't want to talk about. The fact that the
so-called PBA procedure is a medically recommended procedure for
pregnancies that are very dangerous and in almost every case involving
a fetus that is already dead.
Since this procedure has much more risk to the woman than normal
delivery would no doctor is going to perform it electively.
But it makes goo publicity and makes an opportunity to establish an
anti-abortion bridgehead that can be expanded to include other
procedures and eventually to eliminate abortion completely.
That's the intention of the anti-choicers...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
31 Aug 2004 10:48:03 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 07:39:07 -0400, somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<flo8j0hfvlhur2nrt2orfsj3fc7fo5p7r1@4ax.com> wrote:
Since this procedure has much more risk to the woman than normal
delivery would no doctor is going to perform it electively.
But it makes good publicity and makes an opportunity to establish an
anti-abortion bridgehead that can be expanded to include other
procedures and eventually to eliminate abortion completely.
That's the intention of the anti-choicers...
That is self-evident. They are desperate to have some kind of
anti-abortion law passed under any circumstances and covering anything
since they have totally failed in the past. Any kind of success can
possibly be expanded upon in the future.
This is called the nose of the camel under the tent flap. If you let
the nose in the remainder of the camel will soon follow.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aegis" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
28 Aug 2004 07:52:37 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:jf62j0d8qejp3tnhonkd152q82vmbofpc4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:12:59 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<XE_Xc.37459$%n4.33734@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7LMXc.8779$QJ3.8386@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
"... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
particular types of abortion."
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act unconstitutional.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing
Republicans
in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title in the
campaign.
That was not the law's purpose, liar.
The law's purpose was to OUTLAW Partial Birth Abortions and to imprison
any
person who trasngressed the law for two years.
Read the LAW, STUPID!
What the law says does not matter. It was obviously unconstitutional
and so far two separate courts have said this. The entire bill was
political.
Only one missing provision, for womens' health, was missing and rendered it
unconstitutional... By simply placing that verbage into the law, they can
give it another go.
It's important to note that the idea behind the law wasn't what made it
unconstitutional, just the fact that a certain piece was not in the verbage.
Only a Constitutional Amendment is legal here.
The purpose of the law was written into LAW and made law by the President.
The lower court judges are neglecting the duty as judges to rule according
to law.
Not is their opinions, and since the only opinions that count are the
opinions of higher level judges that leaves you out.
NEW YORK - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday in the
second such ruling in three months -- even though he
called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.''
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey -- one of three
federal judges across the country to hear simultaneous
challenges to the law earlier this year -- faulted the
ban for not containing an exception to protect a
woman's health, something the Supreme Court has made
clear is required in laws prohibiting particular types
of abortion.
The law, signed in November, banned a procedure known
to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called
partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetes is
partially removed from the womb, and the skull is
punctured or crushed.
Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive
Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the
ruling: ``We can only hope as we have decision after
decision after decision striking these bans, saying
they endanger women's health, that the legislatures
will finally stop.''
On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San
Francisco also found the law unconstitutional, saying
it violates a woman's right to choose an abortion. A
judge in Lincoln, Neb., has yet to rule. The three
judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.
The three verdicts are almost certain to be appealed to
the Supreme Court.
''We are in the process of the appeal of these issues
now, which tells you exactly what we're doing and where
we're going,'' Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday.
The ban, which President Clinton twice vetoed, was seen
by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure
from the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade. But the Bush
administration has argued that the procedure is cruel
and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.
At trials earlier this year, doctors testified that of
1.3 million abortions performed annually, the law would
affect about 130,000. Some observers suggest the number
would be much lower -- 2,200 to 5,000.
In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that
the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He
said the Supreme Court had made it clear that ``this
gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists
a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in
which any women could potentially benefit from it.''
At another point, Casey wrote that testimony put before
himself and Congress showed the outlawed abortion
technique to be a ``gruesome, brutal, barbaric and
uncivilized medical procedure.''
Casey, who was appointed to the bench by Clinton in
1997, was considered by some observers to be the best
legal hope for the law's supporters.
''The judge was very aggressive in his questioning and
very transparent in his articulation of his personal
views on the matter,'' said Gloria Feldt, president of
Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
``Fortunately, he chose to uphold the law.''
Copyright 2004 Knight Ridder
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 01:35:30 AM |
|
|
Aegis <lordaegis@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
What the law says does not matter. It was obviously unconstitutional
and so far two separate courts have said this. The entire bill was
political.
Only one missing provision, for womens' health, was missing and rendered it
unconstitutional... By simply placing that verbage into the law, they can
give it another go.
But they don't want to put that into the law. They want to see people
suffer.
It's important to note that the idea behind the law wasn't what made it
unconstitutional, just the fact that a certain piece was not in the verbage.
In other words, except for the part about making some abortions
illegal there was nothing wrong with it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "LeMod Pol" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 01:57:53 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Aegis <lordaegis@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
What the law says does not matter. It was obviously unconstitutional
and so far two separate courts have said this. The entire bill was
political.
Only one missing provision, for womens' health, was missing and rendered it
unconstitutional... By simply placing that verbage into the law, they can
give it another go.
But they don't want to put that into the law. They want to see people
suffer.
how did you come to that bizarre conclusion?
It's important to note that the idea behind the law wasn't what made it
unconstitutional, just the fact that a certain piece was not in the verbage.
In other words, except for the part about making some abortions
illegal there was nothing wrong with it.
Nobody said that. Perhaps you should go back and read
the thread from the beginning. You are commenting on
something totally out of context.
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 02:03:00 AM |
|
|
LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Aegis <lordaegis@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
What the law says does not matter. It was obviously unconstitutional
and so far two separate courts have said this. The entire bill was
political.
Only one missing provision, for womens' health, was missing and rendered it
unconstitutional... By simply placing that verbage into the law, they can
give it another go.
But they don't want to put that into the law. They want to see people
suffer.
how did you come to that bizarre conclusion?
Anti-abortion fanatics only care about forcing women to suffer and
obey. They don't do anything to actually help.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
| | | | | |
