by user I Am Coyote
OK, I am new to the politic.wikia format so please forgive any publishing errors. However this is a repost from my original post on my blog NWRepublican ( www.nwrepublican.blogspot.com).
First, I encourage folks to read the decision. It is long and arduous in places yet in others it is riveting. It is also reasoned, which demonstrates just how diabolical the current Democrat Presidential candidates truly are.
- The evidence supports the legislative determination that an intact delivery is almost always a conscious choice rather than a happenstance, belying any claim that a standard D&E cannot be performed without intending or foreseeing an intact D&E. That many doctors begin every D&E with the objective of removing the fetus as intact as possible based on their belief that this is safer does not prove, as respondents suggest, that every D&E might violate the Act, thereby imposing an undue burden. It demonstrates only that those doctors must adjust their conduct to the law by not attempting to deliver the fetus to an anatomical landmark. Respondents have not shown that requiring doctors to intend dismemberment before such a delivery will prohibit the vast majority of D&E abortions. Pp. 24-26. 3. The Act, measured by its text in this facial attack, does not impose a "substantial obstacle" to late-term, but previability, abortions,as prohibited by the Casey plurality, 505 U. S., at 878. Pp. 26–37.
The emphasis is of course mine. This is only a portion and gives hint what Mark Levin suggests is an open door to the proponents of partial birth abortion. Levin suggests that Kennedy is not upholding the ban on PBA outright, but just in the case of hypothetical situations.
More from pro-abort Justice Kennedy's decision (Keep in mind that Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and Johnathan Edwards are all going ballistic over this decision and claiming that this is somehow EXTREME. Read on and see who is extreme.):
- Opinion of the Court I A The Act proscribes a particular manner of ending fetal life, so it is necessary here, as it was in Stenberg, to discuss abortion procedures in some detail...Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26½-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
- "‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. . . . "‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. "‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. . . . "‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’" Ibid.
Barbaric, no? Not to Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Somehow those Democrat candidates for President just cannot find it in themselves to understand that there is a place in our government to protect the most vulnerable in our society. You know, those who cannot protect themselves.
Somehow to the Democrats this child, fetus, "flinching" thing does not qualify for constitutional protections and ANY discussion of such protections is somehow extreme. Edward's in his rampage, referred to this decision as "sweeping," and called it a "hard right turn." Please.
Then there is that legal eagle Barak Obama who thought that somehow this ruling "eroded" Roe v. Wade? Please.
And finally from the probable nominee of the Democrat Party Hillary Clinton who said this: "It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito." Can you hear her shrill voice even as you read that? Now overlay her shrill voice as you picture the procedure of a young life flinching in it's final moments. How noble.
I want to hand it to Joseph Biden. Of the Democrat nominees for President I think he is the only one to have voted in favor of the PBA ban.
On the Republican side from what I have seen all the Republican nominees favored the decision. Yes even Rudy. Rudy is pro-abort and somehow even this decision is ok with him. As if we needed another example of just how extreme Hillary, Edwards and Obama are.
Tom Tancredo called the partial birth abortion procedure a “barbaric practice of infanticide.” Good for Tancredo. I would hope that all the nominees would refer to this procedure in the extreme nature that it surely is.
I for one would welcome a drawn out debate about this decision and the procedure that surrounds it. Let's have a discussion over the "flinching" fetus and just who is extreme. Let's have a debate over which side is the "extreme" side of this issue. Let Hillary Clinto defend the procedure of rotating the moving "fetus" into the birth canal in order to insert the scissors.
This may actually be a point that Rudy could start hitting some singles. He is the guy who successfully prosecuted mobsters. You know those lovable guys who used to threaten helpless shop owners and other innocent Americans simply because they (the mobsters) were bigger and stronger. Rudy could argue that because the government has a role in protecting innocent Americans in those situations, so the government has a role in protecting the innocents in this situation.