| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"papa jack" |
| Date: |
08 Oct 2004 10:05:19 AM |
| Object: |
Justice Appeals PBA Ban |
On 9 October, 2004, the British Medical Journal posted an article
by Janice Hopkins Tanne titled: "US Justice Department Appeals
Against the Rulings That Banning Partial Birth Abortion Is
Unconstitutional." Go to:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7470/820-e
___________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"The US Justice Department filed appeals against all three
court rulings that found the federal law banning 'partial
birth abortion' unconstitutional. The US Conference of
Catholic Bishops commended the Justice Department and said,
'There is no place in a civilised society for this cruel
and inhumane practice.'
[...]
"The Justice Department appealed all three rulings to the
next level, circuit courts. Three different circuit courts
will hear briefings in the next month or so, then hear oral
arguments, and decide and issue written decisions in late
2005 or early 2006.
"Then the case may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which
may or may not accept the case. Supporters of the law hope
that the appeals might be heard by a more conservative
Supreme Court in two or three years' time.
[...]
"Whether the issue will go to the Supreme Court some years
from now is not certain. If all three circuit courts agree
that the federal law is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court
may not review the case because only four years ago it
reviewed a similar Nebraska state law and found it uncon-
stitutional because it lacked an exception to protect a
woman's health. If the courts disagree, the Supreme Court
might step in to resolve the issue.
[...]
"...Underlying the fight is the composition of the Supreme
Court. Eight of the nine judges are over 65 and some may
retire soon, giving whoever is elected president next month
the right to appoint judges in line with his views."
___________________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
This will be interesting to watch. Pro-Lifers should hope the
process drags out for several years -- giving continued publicity
to the barbaric outlook of the Pro-Aborts when they try to defend
ANY acts of the abortion industry.
This controversy forces ordinary folks to THINK ABOUT ABORTION.
That will invariably cause most ordinary people to turn away in
disgust from the realities of killing living unborn children
just for convenience.
.
|
|
| User: "Jake The Snake" |
|
| Title: Re: Justice Appeals PBA Ban |
08 Oct 2004 10:20:05 AM |
|
|
On 2004-10-08 08:05:19 -0700, (papa jack) said:
On 9 October, 2004, the British Medical Journal posted an article by
Janice Hopkins Tanne titled: "US Justice Department Appeals Against the
Rulings That Banning Partial Birth Abortion Is Unconstitutional." Go
to:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7470/820-e
___________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"The US Justice Department filed appeals against all three court
rulings that found the federal law banning 'partial birth abortion'
unconstitutional. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops commended
the Justice Department and said, 'There is no place in a civilised
society for this cruel and inhumane practice.'
[...]
"The Justice Department appealed all three rulings to the next
level, circuit courts. Three different circuit courts will hear
briefings in the next month or so, then hear oral arguments, and
decide and issue written decisions in late 2005 or early 2006.
"Then the case may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may or
may not accept the case. Supporters of the law hope that the appeals
might be heard by a more conservative Supreme Court in two or three
years' time. [...]
"Whether the issue will go to the Supreme Court some years from
now is not certain. If all three circuit courts agree that the
federal law is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court
may not review the case because only four years ago it reviewed a
similar Nebraska state law and found it uncon-
stitutional because it lacked an exception to protect a woman's
health. If the courts disagree, the Supreme Court might step in to
resolve the issue. [...]
"...Underlying the fight is the composition of the Supreme Court.
Eight of the nine judges are over 65 and some may retire soon,
giving whoever is elected president next month the right to appoint
judges in line with his views."
___________________________________________________________________________
Papa
Papa Jack comments:
This will be interesting to watch. Pro-Lifers should hope the process
drags out for several years -- giving continued publicity to the
barbaric outlook of the Pro-Aborts when they try to defend ANY acts of
the abortion industry.
As a conservative, I object to the Bush Administration wasting
government money fighting such a losing battle. If you want to stop
abortion, do it through your church or synagogue. Stop trying to get
the government to intrude on the rights of others. Abortion is wrong.
I know that and don’t need the government to tell me so. Apparently
you do?
This controversy forces ordinary folks to THINK ABOUT ABORTION.
By wasting taxpayer money.
That will invariably cause most ordinary people to turn away in
disgust from the realities of killing living unborn children
just for convenience.
You mean they will turn away from the Bush Administration in disgust
over the waste of taxpayer funds. I support Bush, but if he continues
on with these kinds of witch hunts he will turn off even me.
Maybe it is time for you to stop preaching about how abortion should be
illegal and start actually convincing people it is wrong. If people
view abortion as acceptable, which they clearly do, they we seek them
out no matter what laws you force on them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Justice Appeals PBA Ban |
08 Oct 2004 12:28:19 PM |
|
|
Thanks for the news.
I wonder why Fischer made the Pope statement?
It would be nice if the Catholic Church in the USA would adhere to the
Pope's teachings, huh?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
"papa jack" <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bd9f1f6b.0410080705.7ab6710b@posting.google.com...
On 9 October, 2004, the British Medical Journal posted an article
by Janice Hopkins Tanne titled: "US Justice Department Appeals
Against the Rulings That Banning Partial Birth Abortion Is
Unconstitutional." Go to:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7470/820-e
___________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"The US Justice Department filed appeals against all three
court rulings that found the federal law banning 'partial
birth abortion' unconstitutional. The US Conference of
Catholic Bishops commended the Justice Department and said,
'There is no place in a civilised society for this cruel
and inhumane practice.'
[...]
"The Justice Department appealed all three rulings to the
next level, circuit courts. Three different circuit courts
will hear briefings in the next month or so, then hear oral
arguments, and decide and issue written decisions in late
2005 or early 2006.
"Then the case may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which
may or may not accept the case. Supporters of the law hope
that the appeals might be heard by a more conservative
Supreme Court in two or three years' time.
[...]
"Whether the issue will go to the Supreme Court some years
from now is not certain. If all three circuit courts agree
that the federal law is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court
may not review the case because only four years ago it
reviewed a similar Nebraska state law and found it uncon-
stitutional because it lacked an exception to protect a
woman's health. If the courts disagree, the Supreme Court
might step in to resolve the issue.
[...]
"...Underlying the fight is the composition of the Supreme
Court. Eight of the nine judges are over 65 and some may
retire soon, giving whoever is elected president next month
the right to appoint judges in line with his views."
___________________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
This will be interesting to watch. Pro-Lifers should hope the
process drags out for several years -- giving continued publicity
to the barbaric outlook of the Pro-Aborts when they try to defend
ANY acts of the abortion industry.
This controversy forces ordinary folks to THINK ABOUT ABORTION.
That will invariably cause most ordinary people to turn away in
disgust from the realities of killing living unborn children
just for convenience.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Justice Appeals PBA Ban |
08 Oct 2004 10:37:15 AM |
|
|
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9 October, 2004, the British Medical Journal posted an article
by Janice Hopkins Tanne titled: "US Justice Department Appeals
Against the Rulings That Banning Partial Birth Abortion Is
Unconstitutional." Go to:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7470/820-e
___________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"The US Justice Department filed appeals against all three
court rulings that found the federal law banning 'partial
birth abortion' unconstitutional. The US Conference of
Catholic Bishops commended the Justice Department and said,
'There is no place in a civilised society for this cruel
and inhumane practice.'
Jackass apparently would like the US to be under the control of the
Pope.
___________________________________________________________________________
This will be interesting to watch.
Doubt it.
Pro-Lifers should hope the
process drags out for several years -- giving continued publicity
to the barbaric outlook of the Pro-Aborts when they try to defend
ANY acts of the abortion industry.
Smirk. Jackass, who has tried to justify the murder of innocent
children, who demands the enslavement of pregannt women, who shows
no morals whatever, who lies incessantly, tries to condemn other
people's morals.
Almost funny. More pathetic.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
