Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 10/02/2003 View Wed 10/01/2003 View Tue 09/30/2003 View Mon 09/29/2003 View Sun 09/28/2003 View Sat 09/27/2003 View Fri 09/26/2003
1
2003-10-02 Home Front
House doesn’t like extra-vicious infanticide procedure
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Katz 2003-10-02 2:52:31 PM|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [412 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Ohhh, there'll be a lot of hootin' and hollerin' about how this somehow applies to ALL abortions. The SCOTUS will ignore the facts and details of the case law and strike it down. They're all in favor of an implied right to privacy, but itch to restrict Second Amendment rights, despite the plain text.

Fact is, although I'm pro-life and applaud this move at one level, I think this is over-reaching on the part of both the Congress, President, and the SCOTUS. Traditionally, issues of manslaughter and murder are the purview of the States, and issues of abortion should be decided at the state level, not the federal.

Another issue is that of regulation of Medical procedures. Do the feds and the states have a right to regulate what kinds of medical procedures are conducted within the state? If you consider the practice of medicine as a business, then I suppose, given the current environment, that you should. My preference would be that the state should butt out of any kind of business, providing the right to sue as a safeguard.

However, looking at the facts of the case, Abortion can be defined as malpractice: The claim is that the operation is on the Mother, but it can be demonstrated that the body parts extracted are NOT from the mother. I have no objection to a woman and a doctor agreeing that an amputation should take place, but would be highly annoyed if the doctor then cut MY leg off. The only reason why abortionists aren't sued is that the victims, being underage, dead, and sold out by their parents, can't bring suit. Exploitation? You betcha...
Posted by Ptah  2003-10-2 3:09:58 PM|| [HTTP://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2003-10-2 3:09:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Umm, Peshawar?
Posted by Dakotah 2003-10-2 4:23:34 PM||   2003-10-2 4:23:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Peshawar? Excuse me? I'm not familiar with that term.
Posted by Katz 2003-10-2 4:29:33 PM||   2003-10-2 4:29:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Umm, Peshawar?

In Peshawar, they wait until the baby is much, much older, THEN kill it.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-10-2 6:09:19 PM||   2003-10-2 6:09:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 I have a very, very long list of people well-deserving of post-partum abortions. Let's not go messing with a good thing.

That said, partial-birth abortions are nothing but a grotesque form of infanticide, and I wouldn't want any doctor that's every performed one within six city blocks of me or my family.
Posted by Old Patriot  2003-10-2 11:08:41 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]  2003-10-2 11:08:41 PM|| Front Page Top

08:42 Snereper Thromble7441
16:53 Raza
12:31 Anonymous
07:18 Jarhead
04:24 Bulldog
02:27 Not Mike Moore
00:13 mojo
00:06 mojo
00:03 mojo
00:02 Not Mike Moore
23:57 mojo
23:49 Not Mike Moore
23:26 Old Patriot
23:14 Old Patriot
23:08 Old Patriot
22:52 Old Patriot
22:42 Old Patriot
22:38 Frank G
22:37 Old Patriot
22:34 Frank G
22:33 Frank G
22:31 Frank G
22:29 Anonymous
22:22 Frank G
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com