The ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts on Tuesday night all ran full stories on the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Act, but while each included arguments from justices in the majority, featured a soundbite from pro-life lawyer Jay Sekulow and offered at least a brief description of the procedure, they all framed the stories in ways favorable to those on the losing side. All led into competing soundbites by putting abortion supporters on the side of “rights” -- describing “abortion rights supporters” versus “abortion opponents” -- characterized the ruling as imposing a further “restriction” on abortion instead of as expanding protection for the unborn, and creatively distanced themselves from the “partial-birth” abortion term.
ABC's Charles Gibson saw “a long-sought victory for abortion opponents” before Jan Crawford Greenburg fretted that “abortion rights activists were devastated.” CBS's Wyatt Andrews highlighted how “abortion rights supporters bitterly protested” since “the ban is now the first abortion restriction ever approved with no exception for the health of the mother.” NBC's Chip Reid related that “abortion rights activists worry this may be only the start of a campaign to limit abortion rights.”
“So-called” partial-birth hot potato: With “5-4 ruling upholds federal ban on so-called 'partial-birth abortion'” on screen, ABC anchor Gibson brought in ideology as he announced that "the court's new conservative majority today upheld a nationwide ban on a controversial procedure, one that critics call 'partial-birth abortion.'” Jan Crawford Greenburg cited how “the court said the government could ban a specific type of abortion procedure.” Over on the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric referred to “a controversial late-term abortion procedure” and Wyatt Andrews reported on “what Congress called 'partial-birth abortions.'” NBC's Chip Reid asserted that the court “upheld a federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure that opponents call 'partial-birth abortion.'”
The ABC and CBS stories were the least balanced since, after giving about equal time to quotes from justices on both sides and advocates on each side, the two networks added another pro-partial-birth abortion perspective. ABC's Greenburg featured the view of an “abortion provider” and CBS's Andrews showcased a woman, whose baby would have suffered and died after birth, who had a partial-birth abortion and, in tears, declared: “It's wrong for this law to exist at all. Nobody could agonize over the decision more than my husband and I did.”
Transcripts of the three April 18 stories for which I made partial transcripts that Brad Wilmouth completed: .
ABC's World News. Charles Gibson, in opening teaser:
"Abortion ban: The Supreme Court upholds a ban on the procedure known as 'partial-birth abortion,' its most sweeping decision since Roe v. Wade."
With "5-4 ruling upholds federal ban on so-called 'partial-birth abortion'" on screen, Gibson set up the subsequent story:
"Now to the Supreme Court and a very important decision on abortion. In a 5-4 landmark decision, the court's new conservative majority today upheld a nationwide ban on a controversial procedure, one that critics call 'partial-birth abortion.' It was a long-sought victory for abortion opponents. And it sets the stage for even more legal battles to come. ABC's Jan Crawford Greenburg joins us from the court tonight. Jan?"
Jan Crawford Greenburg: "Charlie, today's decision represents a seismic shift. For the first time since Roe versus Wade, the court said the government could ban a specific type of abortion procedure. And for the first time, it upheld an abortion law that did not contain an exception for a woman's health. Scores of women gathered at the Supreme Court to protest. Abortion rights activists were devastated."
Nancy Northrup, Center for Reproductive Rights: "The Supreme Court basically guts 30 years of protection for women's health in the regulation of abortion."
Greenburg: "At issue, a bipartisan federal law that banned one type of abortion performed in the second trimester. The law is called the 'Partial-Birth Abortion Act' because the fetus is partially delivered from the womb before it is killed. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said Congress found the procedure 'gruesome' and 'never medically necessary.' Kennedy said the government has the right to pass laws that 'show its profound respect for the life within the woman.' In court today, an angry Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the unusual step of reading parts of her dissent aloud. She said the decision was 'alarming' and could jeopardize women's health. She said it 'cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away' at the right to an abortion. Conservatives agreed. They said the decision is a significant change that will lead to more restrictions on abortion."
Jay Sekulow, American Center for Law and Justice: "Doctors don't get to do everything they want to do all the time, especially when there's a life involved in it, and here I think the court said, 'You know what? I think when it comes to infanticide, when it comes to this procedure, we're saying no.'"
Greenburg: "But abortion doctors like LeRoy Carhart say some women need the procedure."
Dr. LeRoy Carhart, abortion provider: "Abortion for women will become more risky."
Greenburg to Carhart: "Why?"
Carhart: "Because we won't be able to do what I feel is the safest."
Greenburg: "Today's decision also shows the differences that elections and Supreme Court nominations can make. Just seven years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a similar state law when Sandra Day O'Connor was on the court. Neither John Roberts or Sam Alito had yet to be nominated."
CBS Evening News. Katie Couric, in opening teaser:
"A major ruling from the Supreme Court on abortion. The court upholds the federal ban on a controversial late-term abortion procedure."
Couric introduced the story:
"Now to another big story tonight, a Supreme Court ruling on abortion. The justices, sharply divided, today upheld the new federal ban on a controversial late-term abortion procedure, a procedure opponents and the law itself refer to as 'partial-birth abortion.' In the 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy all voted to uphold the ban. In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote that opponents of the ban 'have not demonstrated that the act imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion.' We'll begin our coverage of this ruling with Wyatt Andrews."
Wyatt Andrews: "It's the first federal ban on any kind of abortion since the court established the right to an abortion in Roe vs. Wade. For abortion opponents, it's the biggest legal victory in 34 years."
Jay Sekulow, American Center for Law and Justice: "The court said the states have a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn child's life."
Andrews, over "Partial-Birth Abortion Ruling" on-screen: "The ban on what Congress called 'partial-birth abortions' applies to any abortion where a fetus is delivered mostly intact. The law, in part, says 'past the navel' when the doctor then kills the 'partially delivered living fetus.' In a 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy said Congress was justified in finding this 'similar to the killing of a newborn infant.'"
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT): "An overwhelming case was made that this procedure was not necessary and it was a barbaric procedure."
Andrews: "The ruling is huge because the ban is now the first abortion restriction ever approved with no exception for the health of the mother."
Clip of protesters: "Not the church, not the state, women must decide their fate!"
Andrews: "Abortion rights supporters bitterly protested even though the number of the banned abortions is small and mostly confined to the third trimester. The protesters say this law can now apply to thousands of second-trimester abortions even when the woman's doctor thinks partial delivery is the safest course."
Eve Gartner, Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "So now, politicians, not doctors, are making medical decisions that are going to put women at risk of hemorrhage, loss of future fertility, and other very serious medical harms."
Andrews: "Opponents of the ban also argue the law could apply to women like Mary Vargas, whose late-term fetus suffered kidney failure in the womb."
Mary Vargas: "Our son had no chance at life."
Andrews: "Her choice, she says, was between birth, where the child would suffer and die, or the kind of mostly intact abortion that's now illegal."
Vargas: "It's wrong for this law to exist at all. Nobody could agonize over the decision more than my husband and I did."
Andrews: "In a stinging dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the ruling 'alarming' and 'irrational' and blasted the all-male majority for not respecting women's choices. 'This way of thinking,' she wrote, 'reflects ancient notions of women's place in the family.' This is one of those rulings that will have a long-term impact. The very definition of a safe and legal abortion has just changed with abortion opponents saying it's about time. Wyatt Andrews, CBS News, at the Supreme Court."
NBC Nightly News. Brian Williams:
"But first to Washington and the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices today issued what may be the most important abortion ruling since Roe versus Wade decades ago. Chip Reid is at the court for us tonight. Chip, good evening."
Chip Reid:
"Well, good evening, Brian. For the first time in the 34 years since Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court today upheld a ban of a specific abortion procedure. Activists on both sides are calling the decision monumental. At the Supreme Court today, a stunning defeat for supporters of abortion rights."
Eve Gartner, Planned Parenthood: "Today's ruling is a seismic shift in the way that the court has handled protections for a woman's health."
Reid: "The court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld a federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure that opponents call 'partial-birth abortion.' Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority that the law does not impose an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion. Abortion opponents call it a major victory, stopping abortions that partially deliver a fetus, then collapse its skull."
Jay Sekulow, pro-life attorney: "I think it's going to be a huge momentum shift for the pro-life movement. The opinion is very, very significant."
Reid: "Nearly 90 percent of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and are not affected by the ruling, but writing for the court's four dissenting justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision 'alarming,' arguing that for the first time since the court established a right to abortion, in 1973 in Roe v. Wade, it has approved an abortion restriction without making an exception for a woman's health. Abortion rights activists worry this may be only the start of a campaign to limit abortion rights."
Eleanor Smeal, pro-choice activist: "This decision is an invitation to legislators both at the national and state level to further restrict abortion, and the Supreme Court will let it happen."
Reid: "Supreme Court experts say one key to today's decision is the replacement of moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with conservative Samuel Alito. This decision, they say, could be a sign the court is heading in a new direction on abortion."
Tom Goldstein, Supreme Court attorney: "Today the Supreme Court opened the door to a possible overruling of Roe v. Wade. They didn't give any strong indications whether they would walk through the door."
Reid: "Now, doctors who violate the ban could get as much as two years in jail, but there is no penalty for women who undergo the banned procedure."
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center





Jan Crawford Greenburg: "Charlie, today's decision represents a seismic shift. For the first time since Roe versus Wade, the court said the government could ban a specific type of abortion procedure. And for the first time, it upheld an abortion law that did not contain an exception for a woman's health. Scores of women gathered at the Supreme Court to protest. Abortion rights activists were devastated."
"Now to another big story tonight, a Supreme Court ruling on abortion. The justices, sharply divided, today upheld the new federal ban on a controversial late-term abortion procedure, a procedure opponents and the law itself refer to as 'partial-birth abortion.' In the 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy all voted to uphold the ban. In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote that opponents of the ban 'have not demonstrated that the act imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion.' We'll begin our coverage of this ruling with Wyatt Andrews."















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
see - I told you we should
April 18, 2007 - 20:40 ET by Dee Bunksee - I told you we should be happy with the scrap "What the law calls" they have already gone to "so called" they are so unbelievable.
The other thing that is making me want to scream with this story is they keep bringing up "health of the mother" without saying that "Life of the mother" is an exception. They do this purposely and as we have already seen on NB there are liberals who think the life of the mother is not considered.
the health of the mother incl
April 18, 2007 - 21:01 ET bythe health of the mother includes such things as forcing her to be drug-free for 9 months (totally unheathly) or forcing her to act responsibly (totally unhealthy)
"health of the mother&
April 19, 2007 - 05:50 ET by motherbelt"health of the mother" also includes "mental health"....e.g. the fact that the woman may be depressed to find out she is pregnant and won't fit into her prom gown.
And Dee, you forgot about "a procedure that opponents call 'partial-birth abortion'"
Botg and motherbelet – and
April 19, 2007 - 08:08 ET by Dee BunkBotg and motherbelet – and seriously when you truly consider the mental health and physical health of a women then abortion should be outlawed. Every person I know who has had an abortion regrets it to some degree or another and no one I know who has had a child (including when they were teenagers) regrets it. I even know a couple people who gave their babies up for adoption and they may regret giving them up, but not having them.
As far as physical health it’s absolutely crazy to say that a woman is so frail and sick that no other procedure would work and that it took them more than three months to figure it out. A c-section is a very common and uncomplicated procedure and less dangerous than natural birth. You don’t even have to be put out.
The whole reason for the partial birth procedure is to make sure the baby dies. It’s sick.
Dee, you forgot about &quo
April 19, 2007 - 05:52 ET by motherbeltdelete double
More than a President
April 18, 2007 - 20:51 ET by acumenTough judicial day for secularist demediacrats.
This SCOTUS ruling should be remembered by all conservatives on election day 2008. For those who want to sit home that day and make their silent protest that whoever the Republican candidate turns out to be is just not conservative enough for their taste, remember you are not just voting for a President. If Kerry had won in 2004, this ruling would have turned out very different.
absolutely, except that there
April 18, 2007 - 21:07 ET byabsolutely, except that there would have been no ruling on this rather than a different ruling. There would be a 6-3 (or 7-2) activist court had Kerry won. Take a look at some of the "tolerant" rulings in Canada (the Bible is hate-speech after all) to see just how intolerant things could be.
If the Republicans put up a c
April 18, 2007 - 22:51 ET by Dan The Man 2If the Republicans put up a candiate that is not completely agaionst abortion, then I will vote for an alternate.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
Dan sometimes the steps mus
April 18, 2007 - 23:01 ET byDan sometimes the steps must be small, an alternate vote is the same as allowing a democrat president to appoint another Ginsberg or three. Do what you think is best but remember the lasting consequences. Last time many people voted for an altenative (Perot) we got 8 years of Clinton.
I was one of those fools that
April 18, 2007 - 23:17 ET by bigtimerI was one of those fools that voted for Perot the first time he ran.
Never again.
I agree that the steps must b
April 19, 2007 - 00:35 ET by Dan The Man 2I agree that the steps must be small, but sometimes we must slap the kid on the but to get his attention. Abortion is one of those make or break items. We got Clinton and we voted in Bush. I would say that the Clinton years taught us something, but some have forgotten what we learned. Until we leaqrn from history we are doomed to repeat it,
I would rather have Satan (Dems) in the form of Satan rule than have someone that gives you lip service and rules like Satan anyway.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
Dan, but consider the fact
April 19, 2007 - 06:00 ET by motherbeltDan, but consider the fact that by letting a Democratic win by voting for an alternate, you not only get the philosophy on abortion that you don't want, you get their philosophy on everything else too......that's cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Dan Go for it in the pr
April 19, 2007 - 19:30 ET byDan Go for it in the primaries the more people that do the stronger the message. But in the general election to not vote for someone because they are say only 50% pro-life ensures us of getting someone 100% pro-infanticide.
And as an added bonus some Supreme Court appointments who will be around for decades. Think about it, with a couple more leftists on that bench (well Roe v Wade was enacted WITHOUT precedent) they will make it up as they go along.
botg, GMTA! I was just goi
April 19, 2007 - 05:57 ET by motherbeltbotg, GMTA! I was just going to reply with that and got to the end of your post!
Republicans need to operate like the Democratics....they may fight like dogs in the primaries, but once the candidate is chosen, they revert to the pack, hold their noses, and punch the "D" box.
PBA
April 18, 2007 - 20:55 ET by NortoBeliever
Pretty quiet on this front!
We had prayer meeting here tonight and all praised The Lord for this victory. What they do not relate is that dismembering the baby in the womb is not covered by this 5-4. I fail to see what the msm is worried about, because the drs will still kill the baby. It may make them a bit more squeamish, but they will get over it. the money is too good.
btw how much tax money does this industry get-millions. Needs to be the next step, deny planned baby killers those funds. Let the patients pay.
Norto,Points well taken, I ag
April 18, 2007 - 21:00 ET by bigtimerNorto,
Points well taken, I agree.
Thank you.
I have been all over that Con
April 18, 2007 - 21:05 ET by rbosqueI have been all over that Constitution and nowhere does it give anyone the right to an abortion. And if it is a "right", then why didn't the PEOPLE exercise their Constitutional right and add it as an ammendment. Because if I'm not mistaken, the SCOTUS does not have the power to ammend the Constitution.
the liberal judges see the Co
April 18, 2007 - 21:11 ET bythe liberal judges see the Constitution as a living breathing document. They are the arbiters of how it needs to be interpreted in order to conform to the current standards of society. Note how they will cite international law when there is no precedent in the US
Precisely why we need constructionists on the court
Liberals, Socialists, Democra
April 18, 2007 - 22:19 ET by Sonny LykosLiberals, Socialists, Democrats, MSM have all become masters by close and extensive study of Joseph Goebbels. The masses don't stand a chance becasue they are like lambs in a jungle.
Good column here from The right Scale web site:
Things Republicans Can Learn From The Democrats
By John Hawkins
1) Respect The Base: The first rule of politics is, "take care of your base." That doesn't mean you give your supporters everything they want, but if your base isn't happy, you're going to have a rough time. Why? Because they're the people who donate money, volunteer to help candidates, talk you up to their friends, defend you when you're under attack, and, when they're happy at least, they’ll crawl over broken glass to come out and vote for you.
Democrats bend over backwards to make their supporters happy. They pay an enormous amount of attention to what their activists have to say, are constantly doing things to try to make them happy, and even though they can't always give them what they want, they go to great lengths to please them.
But, the Republicans in DC? Most of them treat their biggest supporters with polite indifference at best and contempt at worst. On issues of great import to conservatives like fiscal conservatism, illegal immigration, and judges (See the nomination of Harriet Miers for a perfect example of this), the DC GOP have gone out of their way to kick their own biggest supporters in the teeth. Because of that, the base hasn't been happy with the Republican Party since early 2005 and quite frankly, unless some significant changes are made, there’s probably not going to be an about face any time soon.
2) Stay Out Of The Primaries: One of the most aggravating things about the 2006 election was the Republican Party’s involvement in the primaries.
The worst example of this was the National Republican Senatorial Committee's insistence on supporting Lincoln Chafee, a left of center Republican who didn't vote for George Bush in 2004, in a tough Rhode Island primary against Steven Laffey. What was the result of that brilliant maneuver? The NRSC lagged far behind their Democratic counterparts in fund raising because conservatives withheld their donations in retaliation and in the end, Chafee still lost. This isn't the only Republican Party screw-up of this sort either. Look at the Arlen Specter vs. Pat Toomey battle in 2004 and the Randy Graf vs. Steve Huffman race in 2006. In each case, the party's interference came back and bit them hard in the behind.
Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats are generally smart enough to stay out of primaries because they understand that if they get involved, they will inevitably be fighting against their own base to help someone who's probably not much of an asset in getting their agenda through. This is part of the reason that Democrats in Congress are much more disciplined than Republicans, because the Democrats can't thumb their noses at their biggest supporters and then expect the party to come running to save them when they get a primary challenge.
3) Sometimes, It is the Thought That Counts: Rich Lowry once said that, "(Bill) Clinton was in favor of small, popular things. Bush apparently likes to be in favor of big, unpopular things."
This is another area where the Democrats are smarter than the Republicans. The Dems are constantly doing small things to show their base that their hearts are in the right place. It's these little gestures, sometimes even throwaway lines in speeches that help keep their base happy, even when the left isn't getting everything they want.
Republicans in general, and Bush in particular, are terrible at this. They seem to be of the opinion that they can mention Reagan a few times, make a few pleasing noises towards social conservatives, and everything will be fine. But often, it's the little things that end up killing the GOP instead of helping them. When Republicans who claim to be fiscal conservatives vote for a monstrosity like the Bridge to Nowhere or when Bush goes to South America and starts talking about how he will help them out by rewriting our immigration laws, it sends a loud and clear signal that is far out of proportion to the actual significance of the event. Democrats understand this. Most Republicans on Capitol Hill do not.
4) Hang Together Instead Of Hanging Separately: Liberals in the blogosphere have a reputation for being good at organizing and raising money for elections. It's well deserved and I can tell you that from experience, because last election cycle, I started a grassroots conservative group called Rightroots to raise money in the blogosphere. We raised around $300,000 from the right side of the blogosphere in about 3 months which may sound like a lot, but it's chicken scratch when it's spread over 20+ candidates. During that same time period, liberal bloggers raised millions and blew our doors off.
Know why? Simple. The liberal bloggers didn't have a problem with trying to raise money for candidates that they support while a lot of people on the right did. Don't get me wrong, the left side of the blogosphere is a lot bigger than the right side of the blogosphere, but Rightroots reached out to almost all of the big conservative websites and radio talk show hosts. A few agreed to help out, but most didn't.
Why not? "We don't do that." "That’s not what we are about." "We’re just not interested," etc., etc., etc. Well, here's the reality. The left does do that. Maybe their website isn't "about that," but they did it anyway. Maybe they weren't all that interested in raising money for candidates, but they took the time to do it when members of the conservative grassroots online wouldn't do the same thing.
The conservative grassroots could be much stronger and more vibrant than our opponents across the aisle in every way, but we don't work together. Most of the big talk radio hosts and magazines treat conservative bloggers like lepers and almost nobody wants to help the GOP raise money to win elections. The potential there is enormous, but we're behind the left because they're much more willing to try to push the movement as a whole forward than most of us on the right.
5) Attack, Attack, Attack! We might as well change the Republican Party symbol from an elephant to a punching bag because the Republican wimps in DC just refuse to fight back. The base may have no qualms about going after liberals, but when we look for Republican pols on the Hill to show some leadership in this area, we're almost always sadly disappointed.
Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy treat politics like a street fight in an alley. They wrap a chain around their fist, grab a broken bottle with the other hand, and then aim for the eyes and the throat. Meanwhile, George Bush and Company are wearing boxing gloves stuffed with extra foam and try not to hit anybody too hard for fear of making them mad. The Bushies aren't afraid to go after terrorists, but when Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton attacks, they tremble like John Edwards after he runs out of mousse.
C'mon, guys, you don't have to start comparing Howard Dean to Hitler or anything, but how about showing a little moxie instead of cringing, apologizing, and rolling over like French poodles every time the Democrats go after someone? You Republicans on the Hill: the Democrats have spent the last 2 years smacking you in the mouth, taking your lunch money, and pushing you down while you keep hoping people will give you brownie points for being "nice" and "bipartisan." At what point does it dawn on you guys that it's time to go after the Democrats as hard as they're going after you?
posted by Dick 12:15 AM
Thanks for the posting. Agr
April 19, 2007 - 02:52 ET by Jack BauerThanks for the posting. Agreed.
Constitutionally Implied Right To Privacy
April 18, 2007 - 21:37 ET by RiharIn my studies re: Roe Vs. Wade the opinion set forth guidelines for state abortion regulations. States could restrict a woman's right to choose only in later stages of the pregnancy. Later modified but not overruled. So even in 1973 (if I read it right) partial-birth abortion could be restricted. "Rolling back the constitution" as some have stated, did not occur here at all.
Friends used to kid me about having a copy of the Constituion. This (and about five other instances in the past eight years) is why.
When a liberal speaks, the truth is busy elsewhere.
Rihar,If friends used to kid
April 18, 2007 - 21:41 ET by BlondeRihar,
If friends used to kid you about having a copy of the Constitution, maybe you need new friends.
Like those of us here.
That is about the coolest thing I've read here in a while.
So keep on reading it, and posting your interpretation.
Go for it!
I've never heard these useful
April 18, 2007 - 23:06 ET by TEI've never heard these useful idiots at ABC, CBS or NBC ever refer to one of their favorite and most used euphemisms, to wit, "affirmative action" (i.e., racial discrimination/racial quotas/racial preferences), as "so-called" affirmative action. They even militantly avoid defining "affirmative action" almost as much as they avoid an accurate description of partial birth abortion.
"PBA"
April 18, 2007 - 23:25 ET by aronscottThe reason the term "partial birth abortion" is problematic is because the word birth suggests the beginning of one's life, not their death. Linguistically, it's a well-crafted oxymoron by pro-life activists, intended to blur the perceived line between abortion and infanticide. In truth, doctors only resort to the 'PBA' procedure in 1% of abortions, which are performed generally between the 18th and 24th weeks of pregnancy, before a developing fetus has a reasonable chance of surviving as a living, healthy child outside the womb. And, in the rare instances where 'PBAs' were done in the third trimester, at a point in the gestational period when the fetus could possibly survive outside the womb, in virtually every instance it was done because the fetus was already dead, or because a severe birth defect like spinal bifida or Down syndrome was detected, or there was a serious risk to the life of the pregnant woman.
A question for those thinking, first and foremost, of the welfare of the fetus, and are celebrating today's Supreme Court decision:
Is it more humane or less cruel to now require doctors performing mid-to-late 2nd trimester abortions to clumsily dismember the fetus inside the uterus before extracting its individual body parts, risking imprecise actions in the process that could result in unnecessary suffering of the fetus or physical harm to the pregnant woman, than to dilate the woman's cervix, pull the legs of a not yet viable fetus out first and with no room for error, puncture the developing skull and brain, instantly, without inflicting pain, ending the potential life of a fetus?
Baby aaron baby.Your post is
April 18, 2007 - 23:45 ET by bigtimerBaby aron baby.
Your post is real rich.
Who are you to decide if the baby feels pain or not?
Baby aron baby...something we all were once.
doing the math====
April 18, 2007 - 23:58 ET by misterbilldoing the math====45,000,000 x .01 =450,000 children who would have graced our country. How many of them would be the people who one day would find cures for diseases , helped to make peace on earth, nurtured and helped underprivileged people to improve their lot?
Gee, I don't know the answer--you see--people like you killed them. Now we will never know!
it's a step in the right di
April 19, 2007 - 01:05 ET by wiwfit's a step in the right direction: ending the more barbaric examples of a barbaric practice.
Thank God!
I was listening to Janet Pa
April 19, 2007 - 01:47 ET by radiofitz34I was listening to Janet Parshall's America earlier today. She raised a good point about what does the media want to call it. Two choices really, either partial birth abortion or infantiside. I don't they will use infantiside. So they use so-called partial birth abortion.
It's scary about how cold hearted the MSM is. They just would rather assume we don't know how gruesome the procedure is. Also because of modern medicine, a child can be born at 6 months gestation and go on to live a healthy life.
I chuckle everytime I see som
April 19, 2007 - 10:05 ET by Prester JohnI chuckle everytime I see some pro-abortion extremist talk about being outraged about the overturning of a Supreme Court "precedent".
By their logic Dred Scott should still be the law of the land because that decision "settled" the slavery issue in 1857.
Roe v. Wade is a seminal even
April 19, 2007 - 10:37 ET by iveseenitallRoe v. Wade is a seminal event in the history of this nation. Do those judges realize what they wrought over thirty years ago? Shame on them. Obama supports a woman's "right" to suck the brains out of a baby while it is coming into the world. What a guy! He gives "hope" to us all.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal