How Dare You Outlaw Infanticide!

Yep. It's time for another abortion post. Get ready for some invective, people. I have very little sympathy for the pro-death camp. Check out this crap:

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Challenged

Trials began in federal courtrooms in three states Monday as abortion-rights activists sought to have the new federal ban on partial-birth abortion declared unconstitutional.

I can't wait to see how they fit "the right of the people to kill their children in the womb shall not be infringed" into the Constitution.

The trials — in New York, San Francisco and Lincoln, Neb. — are the first to dispute the law President Bush signed in November that bans the controversial late-term abortion procedure.

In the opening statements of the New York case, the government contended that fetuses feel pain during partial-birth abortions and that the procedure therefore should be illegal.

Is that the best they can come up with? How about mentioning that it's F**KING MURDER! Are you trying to lose the case?!

Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean H. Lane defended the federal ban, which he described as an attempt to stop an "inhumane and gruesome procedure that causes pain to the fetus."

Yes. Pain and F**KING DEATH!!!! Why are they sugarcoating it?

But a lawyer for the plaintiffs argued that making some abortions illegal poses a threat to all late-term abortions and violates constitutional rights.

I think it's interesting that the Constitution doesn't mention any right even remotely related to this. Which amendment are they looking at?

A. Stephen Hut Jr., the plaintiffs' attorney, said the law is overly vague and should be taken off the books.

What's vague about it? It makes a certain procedure illegal. Case closed. Dang it.

"Our evidence will show the court that this act unconstitutionally compromises a woman's right to reproductive choice and it is designed to remove the abortion alternatives," Hut told the court.

"Right to reproductive choice?" Oh, you people are f**king brilliant, aren't you?

"The right to kill off kids we don't want isn't in the Constitution, but...we'll call it a right because we're right, so that means what we say is right counts as a right!!!!"

I'm sure it went something like that. If women want "reproductive choice," they should stop having f**king sex before they can handle a child. If it's a rape or something, make the decision before the fetus is ready to friggin' come out.

Unbelievable.

To date, the federal law has not yet been enforced because judges in the three cities agreed to hear evidence in the separate trials without juries before deciding whether it violates the Constitution.

What part of the freaking Constitution are they freaking looking at? Are they going to tell us, or do they just base their view of reality on their opinions?

Judges in the three cities will hear from the National Abortion Federation...

Holy crap. Excuse me while I vomit in disgust at the thought that an organization like that even exists.

*BLECHT*

There. Let's move on.

...the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and several doctors that the law was written too broadly and vaguely, and in such a way that it threatens the health of some mothers.

Oh no! Not their health! Never mind the fact that it's MEANT TO MAKE THEIR CHILDREN DIE!

The simultaneous litigation centers on the ban of what lawmakers defined as "partial-birth" abortion and what doctors call "intact dilation and extraction" — or D&X.

I like to call it "treating human children like frogs in a high school biology class," but whatever.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Act carries a maximum two-year prison term for doctors convicted of performing the procedure. The litigation appears likely to reach the Supreme Court.

In the procedure, generally performed in the second trimester and occasionally in the third, a fetus is partially delivered and its skull is punctured. An estimated 2,200 to 5,000 such abortions are performed annually in the United States, out of 1.3 million total abortions.

Just look at those numbers. Look at 'em. And think about 'em. 1.3 million abortions. Every year. EVERY. YEAR.

Do you really think they were all to protect "the mother's health?"

Sick freaks.

Critics of the law say its language could criminalize more common types of abortion and could be a step toward abolishing abortion.

GOOD.

Supporters contend it applies only to a procedure done late in pregnancy that is never necessary to protect the health of the mother.

"B-b-b-b-b-b-but the baby is an inconvenience! That affects the mother's mental health, and could make her upset or sad! How can you force that on innocent women, you monsters?!"

Hut warned that evidence in the trial will include "very raw stuff" and that descriptions of surgery were "not for the faint of heart." But he said that the federal ban was hazy and unconstitutional and therefore should be tossed.

"I don't care how repulsive it is! It's still right!"

The government said partial-birth abortions aren't ever required medically, as defenders have advocated, and because of the nature of the procedure, doctors shouldn't be allowed to perform it.

"Evidence at trial will illuminate that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary and is an inhumane procedure that should be banned," Lane said.

And he said the law was specific in banning an abortion procedure that kills a "partially born fetus just inches from birth."

According to some *cough*Wesley Clark*cough*, it's not really human until the mother says so. I wonder if these people are going to speak up.

Abortion-rights supporters say the partial-birth ban, the first substantial limitation on abortion since the Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision, violates that ruling.

Oh no. That's not very "progressive," is it?

The high court struck down a similar Nebraska law almost four years ago because it lacked an exception for procedures done to preserve a woman's health. Anticipating this problem, Congress declared that "a partial birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman" and is "outside the standard of medical care."

The abortion-rights groups disagree, saying that doctors may find themselves with no good alternative to the banned procedure to protect a woman's life or health if problems develop.

I find it hard to believe that there are a decent number of situations where this is the ONLY option available.

The American Medical Association does not encourage use of D&X, but says it should not be banned. The College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says alternatives to D&X usually exist, but that in some circumstances it may be the best procedure.

What circumstances, exactly? The ones where the friggin' MOTHER doesn't want a CHILD, but can't decide soon enough?

Opponents of the ban also argue that its language is vague and could be interpreted as covering more common, less controversial procedures, including "dilation and evacuation." Known as D&E, it is the most common method of second-trimester abortion. An estimated 140,000 D&Es take place in the United States annually.

Get rid of those too. Get rid of 'em. Now. Faster. Abortion is evil.

And that's not an exaggeration.

Posted by CD on March 29, 2004 09:15 PM
Category: