On April 19, the ladies of "The View" offered their analysis of the Gonzales v. Carhart decision upholding a federal partial birth abortion ban. Most of the segment was a back and forth between Rosie O’Donnell, who clearly opposed the decision and Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who supported it. Joy Behar and Barbara Walters chimed in occasionally with Behar clearly in the abortion rights camp and Barbara Walters mildly there. Video: Real (1.4 MB) or Windows (1.6 MB); plus MP3 (256 KB)
Rosie expressed horror that there are five Catholics on the Supreme Court and Catholics on the Court apparently violate the "separation of church and state"
O’DONNELL: You know what concerns me? How many Supreme Court judges are Catholic, Barbara?
WALTERS: Five.
O’DONNELL: Five. How about separation of church and state in America?
WALTERS: Every one of them, when they were going through their Senate confirmation hearings said the fact of my religion does not mean that I will vote a particular way because of my religion. So we cannot say that they did it because they’re Catholic. It is interesting that they’re Catholic.
Through the course of the segment, Rosie repeatedly emphasized that partial birth abortions only represent a very small percentage of abortions annually. Elisabeth reminded her that, that is still 2,000 lives lost each year.
Rosie repeatedly played up fears that this is "a way to get in to start eroding Roe v Wade," and it’s "as if the women’s movement never happened." She even quoted Gloria Steinem line, "if men can get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament." Rosie also provided this factually flawed analysis.
"The difference is, you know, we are half the population and there was a women's movement and, you know, feminism really was the reason that this bill, women's reproductive rights ever came into the forefront and was entered and was Constitutionally upheld since ‘73."
Roe v. Wade did not uphold any law. In fact, it struck down a Texas law prohibiting abortion. The entire transcript is below.
ROSIE O’DONNELL: Speaking back to where we started also Supreme Court came down and the first time since 1973 with a partial abortion ban.
BARBARA WALTERS: Five to four.
O’DONNELL: Five to four was the Supreme Court vote. Now it's shocking to me. This is the first time since 1973. Everyone agrees partial birth abortion is horrific. It’s horrific for anyone who has to decide it. 1.3 million abortions done in America every year, 2,000 partial birth abortions. What is that? Zero [pause] .1 percent, 0.1. This is just a way--
ELISABETH HASSELBECK: That's represents 2,000 lives.
O’DONNELL: Right, well, that represents 2,000 women who are at risk and this was their only option. This was not- no one electively chooses to have this kind of abortion.
HASSELBECK: In the partial abortion act, there is an exemption where- if the woman’s life were at risk–
WALTERS: Only her life, not her health
HASSELBECK: Not her health because people could probably claim and have their doctors vouch for them it would cause undue stress, anxiety. There's a lot of blurriness.
WALTERS: You know, most women don't want to have, after the first three months, most women would not want to have an abortion.
O’DONNELL: Right, this is not an elective abortion.
WALTERS: The worry about this is not the partial birth abortion. Well, yes, it is. But the worry, one of the dissenters was Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, and I’m going to read it because she said the majority opinion "cannot be understood in anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by the Court" and that is Roe v Wade. They are afraid this begins to chip away.
O’DONNELL: And it does.
JOY BEHAR: But that’s also what the NRA says too thought about gun control. They also say that if you, if you ban certain guns then you’re chipping away at the Second Amendment. Everybody has the same argument.
HASSELBECK: But this was also, this was kind of a bipartisan effort, actually. I mean in terms of, there were 16 Democrats in the Senate that voted for this ban. There were 63 Democrats in the House that voted for this ban. So it kind of crosses --
O’DONNELL: I don’t think it’s partisan. It's women -- I think women, we are half the population and we can have our bodies legislated by the government.
BEHAR: And men make those decisions.
O’DONNELL: If men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.
[Applause]
HASSELBECK: But I think– this is not. I think we have to be careful because this is not a ban on abortion. I think this- what happened yesterday was actually probably more representative of what the majority of Americans want. We are in a country where people, not myself because I'm anti-abortion, I think people want the right to their abortions. Women want the right to their own bodies in this country.
O’DONNELL: Yes, women's reproductive freedom.
HASSELBECK: Right, but they- most of the people, two-thirds of this country do not want partial birth abortions to be legal.
O’DONNELL: But Elisabeth, it's .15 percent.
HASSELBECK: 2,000 lives, but we count the lives of--
O’DONNELL: Listen. 0.15 percent and mostly the baby is severely ill or the mother's life is at risk. Nobody voluntarily goes in and says "please give me a partial birth abortion because I would like to physically injure-" It is a grotesque procedure.
HASSELBECK: It is grotesque. They remove the child and crush the skull. That child is born into this earth.
O’DONNELL: But usually the woman's life is at risk Elisabeth.
HASSEBECK: There's an exemption here. If the woman's life is at risk it wouldn’t even be-- it's a moot issue.
O’DONNELL: Correct, but why is it brought up? Because it's a way to get in to start eroding Roe v Wade.
WALTERS: That is what the scare is. The scare is does this begin, is this the slippery slope? And we don't know. We will see.
O’DONNELL: It's as if the women’s movement never happened
HASSELBECK: I don't think that's true.
O’DONNELL: I certainly do. It is frightening to me.
BEHAR: I never thought it would be overturned, but it probably will be at some point, just like the Brady Bill was overturned.
O’DONNELL: The difference is, you know, we are half the population and there was a women's movement and, you know, feminism really was the reason that this bill, women's reproductive rights ever came into the forefront and was entered and was Constitutionally upheld since ‘73.
BEHAR: Right.
O’DONNELL: The women's movement, now, ladies we need to get together because we are on the precipice going backwards not forwards. And it is--
HASSELBECK: I'm all for women's rights. I sat on a Title Nine committee. I just don't believe that partial birth abortion should be legal. I don’t think it should. If the woman’s life is not at threat--
BEHAR: But you usually say that government should stay out of people's business. This is an example of that. This should be between a woman and her doctor not the government, right?
HASSELBECK: I also believe in the right to life and I believe this is a grotesque way of taking a life away.
O’DONNELL: But Elisabeth, the baby is usually either deformed or dead.
HASSELBECK: If I were going to give birth and I knew that I was having a baby that was going to have a deformity or some sort of illness.
O’DONNELL: Not a hair lip, not a limb missing severely something--
HASSELBECK: It would, it would not make me want to abort that child. I believe that child --
O’DONNELL: I know, but guess what? That's your choice
HASSELBECK: That’s me I’m just saying me.
O’DONNELL: That's your choice. Right. And every woman deserves that choice.
WALTERS: Nobody is saying you must or you should or you shouldn't.. [applause] What they are saying is choice.
HASSELBECK: It's a legal situation. I don't necessarily think this is a slippery slope. I think it's a valid concern.
O’DONNELL: You know what concerns me? How many Supreme Court judges are Catholic, Barbara?
WALTERS: Five.
O’DONNELL: Five. How about separation of church and state in America?
WALTERS: Every one of them, when they were going through their Senate confirmation hearings said the fact of my religion does not mean that I will vote a particular way because of my religion. So we cannot say that they did it because they’re Catholic. It is interesting that they’re Catholic.
—Justin McCarthy is a news analyst at Media Research Center.













Comments Policy
The Mouth rants once again!
April 19, 2007 - 14:57 ET by goldenthroatWould somebody PULEEEEZE stuff a sock in that fat lesbo's mouth? Oh, wait a minute - she puts her foot in it everytime she opens it - good enough! I hope Baba Wawa gives Rosie O'Dumber enough rope so that pretty soon she'll hang herself.
Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.
enough rope so that pretty so
April 19, 2007 - 15:01 ET by Jack BauerWe're gonna need a stronger rope. Steel cable maybe.
Is a "Aircraft Carrier C
April 19, 2007 - 15:34 ET by ZoneDaiatlasIs a "Aircraft Carrier Cable" strong enough for you?
Seperation of church and stat
April 19, 2007 - 15:15 ET by TruthMongerSeparation of church and state - also NOT A U.S. LAW - just like the fake "right to an abortion..."
Rosie must have her own special pocket constitution - just like KKK byrd...
Some one needs to tell these
April 19, 2007 - 15:38 ET by ZoneDaiatlasSome one needs to tell these idiots that abortion is not a Constitutional right and it was never mention in the Constitution. Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision made Abortion a noncriminal act...
In that case, according to
April 19, 2007 - 16:15 ET by motherbeltIn that case, according to Supreme Judge O'Donnell, anyone who is Catholic can never be a juror, nevermind a Justice of the Supreme Court. Next thing you know, the Catholic juror will be voting "guilty" because of a religious belief that murder is wrong....
Too bad Liz isn't too mean to
April 19, 2007 - 17:31 ET by Conservative in the ArtsToo bad Liz isn't too mean to say something to Rosie's anti-cathloic rules along the lines of :
"tell you what, you want to ban catholics from being in the government, and I want to ban gays."
Then watch Rosie self destruct.
CitA.....or Elizabeth after R
April 19, 2007 - 17:39 ET by bigtimerCitA..
...or Elizabeth after Rosie reaches over and chokes her to death....
you kidding? Rosie's stomach
April 19, 2007 - 18:01 ET by Conservative in the Artsyou kidding? Rosie's stomach wouldn't let her bend forward to even reach Elizabeth. Then, Rosie's butt would get stuck in the chair when she tried to get up, then after all that, Rosie would be out of breath by the time she got to the door.
Rosie out of breath -- PERF
April 21, 2007 - 09:35 ET by ThisnThatRosie out of breath -- PERFECT!
This just goes to show how
April 20, 2007 - 08:39 ET by The Wicked ConservativeThis just goes to show how lacking in common sense the liberal way is. Three things they are willing to kill for are the right to kill the unborn, take away the guns and keeping faith away from the masses so they may be indoctrinated. And they quote the "constitution" as supporting their ideas but I can't find any of them in there. And before some troll tries with the establishment clause read the second half of the sentence you've so twisted.
Now, when there is an actual right clearly expressed in the document, those can be ignored because they don't like it. Right to bear arms, free speech, and that congress shall pass no law restricting the practice of religion are all clearly defined. The PC, gun control and separation of church and state movements try to ignore that fact.
So, let's get it straight once and for all. Liberal = bastardize constitution and make up rights to fit your agenda and pretend the rights you don't like don't exist.
Conservative = uphold the constitution as it is...Those damn intolerant judges, I bet it's because they're Catholic. Maybe they aren't the product of the failing public school system so they can READ THE DOCUMENT!
Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. Talk sense to a
liberal and he calls you a racist, sexist, biggot, homophobe, denier.
As for separation of church a
April 19, 2007 - 18:15 ET by KC MulvilleAs for separation of church and state …
It shocks Americans to discover that until relatively recently, individuals did not choose their own religion. If the king was Catholic, so were you. And if the king converted to become Protestant, so did you. It wasn’t an individual choice. The king (i.e., the state) chose your religion, and you had no say in the matter. Because we have never lived under such a system, it never dawns on us that a state would choose a religion. It simply isn’t anywhere in our collective consciousness. It’s like a blind man hearing about color … he simply doesn’t understand you. The idea of a state forcing citizens to support a religion is so impossible that we’re blind to it.
It was different for the Founding Fathers. That practice was still going on during their times. When they wrote in the amendment that established freedom of religion, it was a relatively new (and radical) concept. When Jefferson wrote his letter and used the words “separation of church and state,” that’s what he was talking about. As it turns out, it has been such a successful and welcome amendment that we now take it completely for granted.
We have forgotten why those words were there in the first place.
It was only a few decades ago that people who had no consciousness of the original need for the amendment began to interpret the “establishment of religion” prohibition. Since they had no awareness of why the clause was there in the first place, they took it to mean that the Founders must have wanted to exclude religion from the public arena. They interpreted it to mean that if the state showed any favoritism for any religion, it would insult everyone else. (To be clear, the Founders never meant any such thing.) Anti-religious zealots pushed that misinterpretation to the extreme. Now, people wrongly use the idea of “separation of church and state” to argue that even the slightest mention of religion would offend someone, so all expressions of religion must be outlawed.
This is what happens when you forget history.
forget history???
April 19, 2007 - 18:21 ET by misterbillMost young folks were not taught American history. Most of us, I include me, do not know or remember much about the Constitution. I am trying to fix that by my current reading! Wouldn't it be nice if there were a show on TV like "are you smarter than a 5th grader"? Something like --"Do you know the Constitution better than a frogging foreigner???" "You can win up to $50,000 for answering 5 questions on the Constitution. " Nah, then the networks would be doing their country a service--never happen!
So in Rosie mind there are on
April 19, 2007 - 18:46 ET by Long Island PeteSo in Rosie mind there are only supposed to be atheists on the Supremem Court?
Would Ro have the same opinio
April 19, 2007 - 18:03 ET by 4arrowWould Ro have the same opinion of a Mormon?
I saw the show today in hospital. Ro drew some number out of her arse about Catholics on the SCOUS and Joy tried two or three times to correct her and finally mumbled not Catholics, Christians. Sheesh.
It seems this girl won't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
My guess?
April 19, 2007 - 18:08 ET by Mr. BishopMy guess is that Rosie would have an even worse opinion of a Mormon. Remember... in a country founded on religious freedom, where freedom to express religion and practice religion, is protected -- the Mormons never got that chance until well after they were in Utah. They were kicked out of 4 states for crying out loud before settling in Utah. As such, since the LDS church has been the whipping boy religion of many, it would not only be free game, it would be open season...
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
You are right about the histo
April 19, 2007 - 18:27 ET by 4arrowYou are right about the history of LDS. My point, not well written is that Ro would have a problem with anyone on the SCOUS who held religious beliefs. Did she have a problem with JFK being a Catholic president? Why not just do away with the human factor altogether and let a computer decide major issues?
Gee, Rosie O'Donnell is anti-
April 19, 2007 - 15:03 ET by Michael ChapmanGee, Rosie O'Donnell is anti-Catholic. Say it ain't so! Oh wait, here's some more evidence of her anti-Christian bigotry, courtesy of The Catholic League:
DISNEY/ABC NEEDS TO REIGN ROSIE IN
On today’s edition of the ABC show, “The View,” the discussion turned to the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday affirming the partial-birth abortion ban. In an angry tone, Rosie O’Donnell asked, “You know what concerns me? How many of the Supreme Court judges are Catholic, Barbara?” Walters responded, “Five.” O’Donnell: “Five. Five are Catholic. Separation of church and state, America.” Walters then said that when the Catholic justices were vetted, they said they would not vote in a particular way because of their religion. But she then said, “It is interesting they’re Catholic.” After others spoke, Walters said she thought the justices were able to separate their faith from everyday life. To which O’Donnell replied, “From your everyday life but not hopefully from the foundation of our government. Separation of church and state.”
Catholic League president Bill Donohue addressed this issue today:
“This is O’Donnell’s eighth attack on Catholics since September. She has said there is no difference between radical Christians and radical Muslims (9-12-06); she has ridiculed the Eucharist (9-28-06); she has falsely claimed that the pope was in charge of policing miscreant priests since the 1980s and did nothing about them (10-2-06); she repeated the lie about the pope again (10-27-06); she has mocked priestly celibacy (2-7-07); she ridiculed the Eucharist again (2-27-07); she mocked Catholic teaching on the Bible and the Virgin Birth (3-26-07); and now she is complaining about too many Catholics on the high court.
“On December 8, 2006, O’Donnell apologized for offending the Chinese after Chinese-American groups protested the way she ridiculed them the week before. On January 18, 2007, ABC said of ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ star Isaiah Washington’s anti-gay slur, ‘We take this situation very seriously, and his actions are unacceptable and are being addressed.’
“Accordingly, we are asking Anne Sweeney, Co-Chair Disney Media Networks and President, Disney-ABC Television Group, to demand that O’Donnell apologize to Catholics and that O’Donnell be treated with as much seriousness as was shown Washington.”
Folks I am reading "The Rise of America--
April 19, 2007 - 15:16 ET by misterbillFolks I am reading "The Rise of America"--by one of our bloggers John Diamond. I feel it is a "must" read for anyone who wants to know what the Constitution REALLY says. Nowhere does it address , in those words, "separation of church and state" and hold onto your hat---you can find that exact statement in the Communist constitution. I can't tell you strongly enough--she is wrong. The book is well resaerched and loaded with actual quotes taken from writings of our Founding Fathers.
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STA
April 19, 2007 - 15:23 ET by TruthMongerSEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS IN WHAT COMMUNIST CONSTITUTION?!?!? NOW THAT MAKES SENSE...
Uh -- yeah
April 19, 2007 - 15:32 ET by Mr. BishopIt's a true statement. The constitution of the former Soviet Union. Read down to section 13: For the purpose of securing to the workers real freedom of conscience, the church is to be separated from the state and the school from the church, and the right of religious and anti-religous propaganda is accorded to every citizen.
Now, having read that, read the US Constitution. Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
...wow, so I guess Rosie is a
April 19, 2007 - 15:36 ET by TruthMonger...wow, so I guess Rosie is asserting that murder is a religious "Catholic thing" and thus according to her communist views regarding separation of church and state we should then abolish all murder laws...? Okeydokey, Rosie...
Noooooooooo...
April 19, 2007 - 15:43 ET by Mr. BishopDon't really care what Rosie is trying to say. The bottom line, is there is no such thing as Separation of Church and State in the United States. It does not exist, except in the minds of liberals. Those words only ever appear in the constitution of the [former] Soviet Union, not found anywhere in the US Constitution. Even the people who like to quote it as a line from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson... there is a problem: He had nothing to do with the framing of the US Constitution or any of the Amendments called the Bill of Rights -- he was out of the country at the time.
Murder is illegal, its basis does come back to the Judaic-Christian heritage of this country, and the Ten Commandments. Even the Soviet Union could not escape that one, except in instances where a peasant of the country, threatened the internal "stability" of the government -- then it was okay to murder. Murder is defined as: The unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice.
So, whether or not Rosie is talking about this or not, is beyond me, but the bottom line is, concerning the "separation of church and state" -- it does not exist in this country by the Constitution. Period.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
I've heard most of that but w
April 19, 2007 - 16:06 ET by TruthMongerI've heard most of that but was not aware about the USSR constitution - very good to know for future commentary on the matter!
I don't think like Rosie whatsoever, that's for sure...but she's definitely asserting here that murder is a religous thing and therefore should not be part of our law...it's so amazingly stupid on so many levels that it boggles the mind...
amendment 1
April 19, 2007 - 15:42 ET by misterbillThis amendment is to protect the people from the government. It illustrates that we are free to create a religion if we so choose. Congress has absolutely no power over us in matters of religion.
In truth....
April 19, 2007 - 15:49 ET by Mr. BishopIn truth, the entirety of the Constitution is designed to protect people from the government. The Constitution does not grant power to the federal government, it is designed to limit the amount of power the federal government has.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Further info--
April 19, 2007 - 15:58 ET by misterbillI wish John Diamomd would login and add his tremendous knowledge to this issue. What you say, Mr Bishop is 100% true. The founders were extremely wide to form the three branches. I forgot which of them said that the Judicial was the "weakest" of the three and it was so by design.
My deep concern is that I am a strong States' rights person and the SCOTUS has been eating away at those rights. I want the term of a Justice to be restricted to ,arbitrarily, 65 years of age. Lord knows they will still be able to exert influence and exercise their kowledge in civilian life. I know that the real issue behind the Civil War was States' rights. Slavery was the excuse. It is not good PC for me to say that. I will now be attacked by some as a racist, yada yada. But, I hold my ground, it is true.
truthmonger "1936 Constitution of the USSR"
April 19, 2007 - 15:35 ET by misterbillArticle 124
"In order to ensure citizen's freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the State, and the school from the church."
I, for one, prefer to live under the Constitution of the USA as defined by our founders and not one as falsely described by the fat one. She must have been born in Russia.
Also the Federalist Papers wi
April 19, 2007 - 15:40 ET by bassndudeAlso the Federalist Papers will tell you exactly what the men who wrote the constitution and the bill of rights meant. It is a must read for anyone that wants to define what the founding fathers were thinking.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass -- right on!
April 19, 2007 - 15:43 ET by misterbillThe book I am reading takes a lot from the Federalist Papers.
Know why?
April 19, 2007 - 15:47 ET by Mr. BishopThe Federalist Papers were not written by Thomas Jefferson, the president the left loves to quote for his line on separation of church and state. As I mentioned previously, Jefferson had absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution, he was out of the country at the time, acting in the capacity of Ambassador (Minister) to France.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Did I mention Jefferson? No.
April 19, 2007 - 15:55 ET by bassndudeDid I mention Jefferson? No. The Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison, for the most part. John Jay was the first Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I know...
April 19, 2007 - 15:59 ET by Mr. BishopI know you didn't mention Jefferson... LOL -- the reason I mentioned Jefferson is due to the fact that liberals enjoy quoting from him, concerning the Constitution and separation of church and state.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
bass n bishop
April 19, 2007 - 16:03 ET by misterbillLOL--the jefferson you both are referring to did not have $100 grand stashed in his icebox.
I can't let Rosie off that easy
April 19, 2007 - 15:19 ET by misterbillI can't let Rosie off that easy------------------------------------------
A lady on Tv quite obese
Her audience she does fleece
And all show long
says things that are wrong
And gets applause from simpering geese!
Misterbill, you made me smi
April 19, 2007 - 20:28 ET by terrigMisterbill, you made me smile at your poem or is it a limerick?
Seung-Hui Cho
April 19, 2007 - 21:06 ET by misterbillIt must be a limerick because when I looked up limerick in the dictionary it said limericks were easy to write and didn't require a lot of skill. I was going to make up one about the person who wrote that definition but I said "forget it".
dear mike chapman,
April 19, 2007 - 15:43 ET by tumbler_2007Ironically Rosie gives the Catholic Church all the credit for this victory over barbarism and inhumanity, when it's really the U. S. Constitution that's triumphant now. Not any person or religion. Our Supremes interpreted the Constitution and determined that no rights are guaranteed anyone to murder an American citizen at the moment of his/her birth. Not Constitutionally or any other way.
Rosie even ignores the clear fact that all people of faith have been vindicated, not only us Catholics. Did that require Catholic judges? Not in America, it didn't. It only required respect for the Constitution and no obligations to special interests such as our country's militant feminists. We all know what Ruth Bader Ginsberg's main concern is, and it's not America or the Constitution. It's feminism and its agenda of abortion on demand. SHE is the justice on this bench most deplorable; installed there by a President and his spouse who are sellouts to the abortion lobby of this country. They can't even HOPE to deny it.
Rosie will; but Rosie's merely a Catholic basher on account of her own moral turpitude, not the Constitution's vital importance to our Law. She merely wishes gays and lesbians could repudiate God in His every earthly manifestation, His all-seeing Eye which is on the sparrow as well as the sinner. Her sins cause her to hate all things Catholic. May God someday bring her to repentence and forgive her.
I agree - but the Catholic c
April 19, 2007 - 16:18 ET by TruthMongerI agree - but the Roman Catholic church really does deserve a considerable amount of the credit for defending human life on this rock...
Maybe if Rosie called nuns
April 19, 2007 - 16:10 ET by motherbeltMaybe if Rosie called nuns "scarf-headed ho's", that would get her fired, because someone might mistakenly think she was talking about Muslim women.....
"scarf-headed ho's"
April 19, 2007 - 16:19 ET by misterbillMotherbelt--I am worried about you.. LOL Good one..
With this gaggle of women--ev
April 20, 2007 - 04:50 ET by Andrew H.With this gaggle of women--even an innocent baby has no chance.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Can someone clear something u
April 19, 2007 - 15:05 ET by GothampcCan someone clear something up for me? Isn't it correct that Roe vs Wade was never a law, that it was just a judicial decision? In order to be a law, doesn't Congress have to vote on it?
There is no right to an abort
April 19, 2007 - 15:13 ET by TruthMongerThere is no right to an abortion in the constitution - if that's what you're getting at...like the right to bear arms...
You are (or were) correct
April 19, 2007 - 15:24 ET by misterbillAt one point the Constitution said that the SCOTUS would pass decisions to the executive and legislative branch WHICH THEY DID NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW! I believe the 14th amendment has muddied those awters. I am not a salesman or a publisher or even a close friend of John Diamond but if you buy his book--he addresses theses issues. I have not finished it yet. I am at the cahpter that addresses the SCOTUS and the changes over the years.
Laws are to be created by the legislative branch.
the book is "The Rise of America". I had to order it from Amazon, it was not in any of the local book stores.
misterbill,Gees, I migh
April 19, 2007 - 15:30 ET by Dave Rmisterbill,
Gees, I might have to get a copy, as I am only 400 or so pages into The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (hey, I just really started it last weekend) and it is beginning to depress the heck out of me.
Mr. Gibbon's life's work, though a history, was also quite prophetic. Eerily so.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.
dave r there is one problem
April 19, 2007 - 15:39 ET by misterbilldave r there is one problem-- I think you are alot like me--you will get so pissed off when you read the inroads to the destruction of America, it will sadden you.
It also will point out why we need American history and parts of the Constitution taught in our schools again.
Isn't it correct that Roe
April 19, 2007 - 16:21 ET by motherbeltIsn't it correct that Roe vs Wade was never a law, that it was just a judicial decision?
Correct, it's not a law, its proponents consider it a "constitutional right", found in the penumbra of (I believe it's) the 4th amendment which talks about privacy. The assumption that it's a right is "rooted" according to the Court that decided it, in the privacy of individuals to make decisions (with their doctor) about their bodies. However, this "theory" doesn't hold true for those who want to practice prostitution, unless the prostitution is sodomy, because that is protected.....now I have myself all confused...good thing I never wanted to be a lawyer.....
A law must be passed by cong
April 20, 2007 - 08:33 ET by BeowulfA law must be passed by congress and approved by the president. The courts apply the law. The SCOTUS interprets the law. At least that's the way it's supposed to work. Of course, with the new SP mentality, if they can't get a law passed, they have two options:
1. Work with liberal judges through the courts to backdoor legislation as in gun control and frivolous lawsuits.
2. Do what they want anyway (they can always just say it's Bush's fault if it doesn't work out).
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
BS
April 19, 2007 - 15:14 ET by jiminjerseyAccording
to a September 15 , 1996 Bergen Record of New Jersey article, Metropolitan Medical Associates in Englewood, NJ admitted
to performing 1,500 partial birth abortions a year, most on healthy
mothers of healthy babies.
So why do liberals and the media keep reporting this number of 2,000 medically necessary Partial Birth Abortions?
You don't say!
April 19, 2007 - 15:30 ET by Cool ArrowIronic Bergen-Belsen was Concentration camp in Germany. See also "passing their chil;dren through the fire to Molech (abortion in the Old Testament) celebrating the god of pleasure.
We are closer to legalizing the murder of born infants than overturning Roe v Wade.
Suppose Rosie stabs her partner in the back of the head before her tongue leaves the birth canal. Just a thought.
"Bergen-Belsen was Con
April 19, 2007 - 18:49 ET by Wolfrem"Bergen-Belsen was Concentration camp in Germany"
I've been there. In the entrance room, there is a diorama of what the camp looked like and pictures hung on the walls. Once past the entry building, all that remains of the camp are the mass burial mounds. Some contained 200, others more. And it had an eerie feel to it. I mean, outside the birds were chirping and there was a light breeze. But once inside the walls, it was silent. No birds, no breeze. It was creepy.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana
Liberal mantas...say it enoug
April 19, 2007 - 15:51 ET by vrwc13Liberal mantas...say it enough times by someone known and it can become fact. Her audience, both studio and at home, probably do not have enough knowlwedge or ablility to check the real facts on their own. So they "trust" Rosie. Ask a liberal where they got their facts and they will probably quote some "celebrity". Why do you think they watch this show in the first place?
Good Example you ask...
Mr. Bishop Says:
April 19, 2007 - 15:43
Don't really care what Rosie is trying to say. The bottom line, is there is no such thing as Separation of Church and State in the United States. It does not exist, except in the minds of liberals.
Rosie isn't dumb, she is ignorant!
“And what I'm saying is, this is a great time for us to look honestly at what we're doing as a society and culture.“ Lou Dobbs 4-17-07
Mr. Bishop
April 19, 2007 - 19:13 ET by gfrrmanMr. Bishop, I have to disagree, Rosie IS stupid..ignorance can be fixed.
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
I have to agree that Rosie Th
April 20, 2007 - 08:37 ET by BeowulfI have to agree that Rosie The Mouth is stupid, and she is ignorant. But that's not the bad part... She is stupid and ignorant and proud of it...
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
Yes. Rosie keeps telling us t
April 20, 2007 - 17:54 ET by QueenMumYes. Rosie keeps telling us that because the percentage is small, we don't need to worry about it.
"DR. CURTIS COOK: Well, even the Alan Guttmacher Institute has estimated that it runs in excess of 2,000 cases a year. And I'm sure that's underreported. It probably more represents five to ten thousand babies a year. So I suppose it depends upon what you define as many. It's a small percentage of total abortions but it's several thousand children a year that will be affected.
GWEN IFILL: Actually those numbers are that 90 percent of abortions occur during the first trimester of pregnancy. Only 1 percent, or depending on how you -- maybe not only -- 1 percent occur after the 20th week of pregnancy which is the kind of procedure we're talking about here. There's a lot debate about those numbers, obviously.
DR. CURTIS COOK: Well, actually the numbers are very consistent. Everyone agrees there's something on the order of 1.3, 1.4 million abortions a year in this country; 1 percent obviously makes up a very small number percentage-wise but you're talking about several thousand cases. So I think several thousand cases is something that the average American would be concerned about." - From a discussion which aired on PBS November 5, 2003.
P.S. Note that Rosie is a bit confused re: the math. She states 0.1%. And on her website, she cites 0.15%. Wonder if she does her own taxes.
Skewed view of Separation of Church and State
April 19, 2007 - 15:32 ET by FrantarJust because 5 of the justices are Catholic, has nothing to do with Separation of Church and State.
Actually, if one's faith is a determining factor whether a Justice can be appointed, wouldn't that be a Separation of Church and State concern?
...it's all just assinine...i
April 19, 2007 - 15:40 ET by TruthMonger...it's all just assinine...is murder strictly a religous concept?! Do non-religous people therefore support murder? She is such an absolute doofus...
Its like I have said a millio
April 19, 2007 - 15:42 ET by USA4freedomIts like I have said a million times, its amazing just how fast the left is willing to pitch the second amendment out the window even though its right there. Compared to the Roe vs. Wade, which is bad law, as well as the separation of church and state, based on a letter written by Jefferson that the government should not establish a national religion
Rosie is breathtaking stupid.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagn- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
USA4freedom good job!!!
April 19, 2007 - 15:50 ET by misterbillUSA4freedom good job!!! The only mention of separation of church and state was, as you state, in a letter from Jefferson to a minister. It was not to exclude religion from the state, it was said to assure the minister that the state could not interfere with his religion.
sort of like how people claim
April 19, 2007 - 16:27 ET by Sygsort of like how people claim the 2nd amendment grants unconditional, individual right to keep and bear arms, when in reality guns may be regulated and prohibited if they have no "...reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" (US v. Miller)
2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Oh goody, little Syggie pooh
April 19, 2007 - 16:37 ET by bigtimerOh goody, little Syggie pooh is back.
You never answered me as far as I know yesterday about your stance on abortion and partial bith abortion... and I was up til late on here mister cut and run and hide.
ANSWER me NOW!
You went on all day about this, even after I sent you a ton of material to read via a link.
Militia: "The whole bo
April 19, 2007 - 16:44 ET by bassndudeMilitia: "The whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service." According to websters. Kinda sounds like the militia is a collective of citizens dont it? US vs. Miller was a case involving a sawed off shotgun. Not "guns" as a whole. Get an education, get a clue.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Syg..show me in the Constitut
April 19, 2007 - 16:47 ET by bassndudeSyg..show me in the Constitution where it sayes, "Seperation of Church and State". Show me those words in the US Constitution.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I don’t usually respond to
April 19, 2007 - 19:55 ET by USA4freedomI don’t usually respond to trolls, if they just drive by and drop a bomb and run. I notice that there are a lot of questions for you below. So what do you have to say? The 2nd amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *** the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*** Now pull out of you’re a$$ where is states a woman’s right to kill her unborn child, where it states why a cross cant be placed on public property, where it states that a child cant pray in school. Show me were it states that a persons property can be taken and handed over to some one else so that it can bring in more taxes????? All of these were extrapolated over and over, yet when it states:…*** the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed*** some how that does not mean what it says. I think you should join Rosie’s think tank.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagn- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Syg cites precedence
April 20, 2007 - 13:30 ET by tumbler_2007Here Syg cites a case of legal precedence. Let's realize then, the importance of yesterday's judgment, upholding the ban on partial birth abortion.
It may seem insignificant overall. In fact, though, a new precedent was set, of great importance. Now we are assured that abortion rights are subject to change and even hopefully, repeal. Before there was scant precedent for ANY Supreme Court action that redresses Roe v. Wade. We'll begin to see this plainly as soon as the ultra-left feminists unite to bring back partial-birth abortions. They have no choice. From now on for abortion rights lawyers, it's do or die.
Thanks, Syg; for making us aware of this.
Not in this thread
April 20, 2007 - 17:57 ET by misterbillNot in this thread--go be obnoxious somewhere else!
Isn't religion a protected
April 19, 2007 - 16:14 ET by jiminjerseyIsn't religion a protected class? So if she is advocating prohibitting someone from serving on the SCOTUS based solely on their religious beliefs isn't she advocating discrimation?
BTW, Who are the idiots in the audience clapping?
I'm sure the tub of lard woul
April 19, 2007 - 15:55 ET by Prester JohnI'm sure the tub of lard would've objected to the abolitionist movement of the 1840s and 1850s since is was led by northern Quakers and other northern churches--no mixing of religion and politics you know.
Athiest Judges?
April 19, 2007 - 16:02 ET by ChasvsSo do we need to find Judges who are avowed Athiests to put on the Supreme Court? When is someone going to pound the reality of what the Separation of Church and State really means into the head of this ignorant B?
Here Here Chasvs. I admir
April 19, 2007 - 16:07 ET by FrantarHere Here Chasvs. I admire your self control on the B word also!
As if an atheist could ever
April 19, 2007 - 19:21 ET by vravaAs if an atheist could ever get past confirmation.
16 Democrats Rosie the Witch
April 19, 2007 - 16:23 ET by bigtimer16 Senate Democrats Rosie the Witch who voted for the ban...including your fearless majority leader Harry Reid (a Mormon)....who now is upset about this decision, pointing to big bad Alito...
Flip-Flopper Delux!
Eat it and weep Rosie!
Rosie's Reich III
April 19, 2007 - 16:25 ET by Cool ArrowWhy is Rosie allowed to spew her hatred of Catholics? Because she can.
Christians are less likely to physically retaliate against speech (or cartoons), regardless of Rosie's applauded remarks to the contrary.
The fact Rosie has an adoring audience is a major tragedy in Western thought.
Why is Rosie allowed to spew
April 19, 2007 - 16:29 ET by SygWhy is Rosie allowed to spew her hatred of Catholics?
Because people like you actually still care about what she says.
We care what Rosie says becau
April 19, 2007 - 16:36 ET by vrwc13We care what Rosie says because she is an influence on others with her ignorant rants. People actually believe/agree with her.
“And what I'm saying is, this is a great time for us to look honestly at what we're doing as a society and culture.“ Lou Dobbs 4-17-07
Yeah so what? Somehow it's
April 19, 2007 - 16:38 ET by SygYeah so what? Somehow it's your duty to protect them?
People are stupid. If you want to proclaim yourself the protector of ignorant Americans, you better get cracking b/c you have a lot of work to do.
I have already begun, you inc
April 19, 2007 - 16:40 ET by vrwc13I have already begun, you included.
face piles of trials with smiles
another fearless member of th
April 19, 2007 - 16:44 ET by Syganother fearless member of the 101st Fighting Keyboard Division, defending America one meaningless post at a time.
Yeah Syg, we love you and we
April 19, 2007 - 16:47 ET by vrwc13Yeah Syg, we love you and we are here to help you. As difficult as that may be, but we won't give up.
face piles of trials with smiles
101st Fighting Keyboard Division? - Hi hater
April 19, 2007 - 16:54 ET by RJ"101st Fighting Keyboard Division"
Hello, hater. Still using your favorite phrases, I see.
Wow RJ,We both posted the sam
April 19, 2007 - 17:24 ET by bigtimerWow RJ,
We both posted the same thing.
Hater indeed, he isn't even tricky...slipped in again, must not like to last long on here.
Of course I said hi hater right from the get go..he is soooo obvious!
Still hasn't answered me...lol
Ha. That's funny, BT.
April 19, 2007 - 20:15 ET by RJHa. That's funny, BT. We both caught it immediately. Yeah, I've been addressing him as hater right along, too. He thinks he's slick but he's always been obvious. ;^>
RJ, BT....I notice he never e
April 19, 2007 - 20:20 ET by BlondeRJ, BT....
I notice he never even once denied it....so typical.
The slap down yesterday was epic.
What it is it with these trolls that they keep coming back?
Hi Blonde
April 19, 2007 - 20:33 ET by RJHi Blonde. I've got that "bomb Iran" song stuck in my head now.
Nah, hater only occasionally denies it. He usually just keeps going until he gets booted. It would be interesting to know why they keep coming back. Some possibilities:
1) Challenge: They understand that this is the best place for debate.
2) Ideological: They hate that this place exists
3) Masochistic: a pathological need to be slapped silly (rhayes, are you reading this?)
4) Financial: They're being paid
5) Sociopathic: A need to control
Any more?
Yeah...
April 19, 2007 - 20:41 ET by Mr. Bishop6) Stupidity: They just plain don't get it...
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Good point, Bishop.I particul
April 19, 2007 - 20:53 ET by BlondeGood point, Bishop.
I particularly love it when they try to argue with YOU!
Hey RJ,It's been running thro
April 19, 2007 - 20:53 ET by BlondeHey RJ,
It's been running through my head today too...."Bomb Iraaaaaan". :D
Well, I'm w/ you on 2 through 4.
1) Challenge....they get their head's handed to them continually. Sheesh, Mobi didn't go one post before changing the "terms of the debate" and trying to call me a "tomato" last night. I feel like an idiot that I called him an "@sshole"...but, hey, sometimes I just have to call them like I see them.....
5) Need to control....they can't control their own mouth's (kinda like ROD), much less any discussion.
Do you really think "syg" is hater....I notice the time on the board is 36 weeks...a little long for the hateful one to emerge, says I. But a haterette, or a clone, perhaps.
Bomb Iraaaaaan......
No doubt about it, Blonde
April 19, 2007 - 21:26 ET by RJOh, no doubt about it. I was already positive, but the "101st" comment sealed it. That's an old favorite of hater's.
101st Fighting Keyboard Div
April 19, 2007 - 16:50 ET by bigtimer101st Fighting Keyboard Division
Definitely got to be hater...or his clone.
Yawn. We're back in 2005 or 0
April 19, 2007 - 20:01 ET by Roger the ShrubberYawn. We're back in 2005 or 06 again. At least when the tards come back, at least they stop recycling the same tired cliches.
no you doofus
April 19, 2007 - 16:43 ET by tumbler_2007It's her perfect right to CARE. You asked why she cared about what La Corpulenta says.
You seem to think nobody ought to care. But why? She has her gay-lesbian agenda and wishes Catholics would just slide off the face of the earth. Which frankly, I don't want to do. Rosie can ESAD.
"People are stupid."
April 19, 2007 - 16:55 ET by bassndude"People are stupid." Syg, you go along ways to proving that. Ignorant Americans? You have already proven that some are more ignorant than others. Everytime you open your mouth, you demonstrate ignorance and lack of education. That, or your IQ is the same as Rosies.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass,Why, that would mean t
April 19, 2007 - 17:00 ET by Dave Rbass,
Why, that would mean that Syggie is, in fact, brain dead!
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.
Dave, Right On Dude!!Save a S
April 19, 2007 - 17:02 ET by bassndudeDave, Right On Dude!!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Wrong
April 19, 2007 - 16:37 ET by Cool ArrowI care what she says because other liberal lemmings follow her. As a recovering Catholic, I've got my disagreements with that church, but someday they'll come for me, and there'll be nobody there to speak up.
Nobody follows rosie. What
April 19, 2007 - 16:40 ET by SygNobody follows rosie. What a silly assertion. She's on a tv show watched almost exclusively by housewives with nothing to do while the rest of us are working.
Still waiting for yyour answe
April 19, 2007 - 16:45 ET by bigtimerStill waiting for your answer.
Syg, your Mom was a housewife
April 19, 2007 - 16:45 ET by vrwc13Syg, your Mom was a housewife, what she watched influenced her and you. And look at you now!
face piles of trials with smiles