Inside baseball: PBA, etc.
I wrote on April 30 about dissent among pro-lifers whether the Partial Birth Abortion Ban is a good thing.
Pro-life hardliners believe to support legislation limiting abortion is to sanction the rest. Hardliners believe the solution to abortion is for all pro-lifers to work together to pass a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution.
I heard Daniel McConchie, VP and Exec. Dir. of Americans United for Life, speak on this topic last week, and he gave me permission for me to post these points….
What does the Supreme Court’s April 18 pba decision do that is good and bad?
What did we get from the decision?Restored guidelines from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which is deferential to state legislation Reinforced importance of informed consent. Kennedy wrote something unprecedented in a Supreme Court decision:
The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed. It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form.
Narrowed the unlimited health exception from Doe. v. Bolton, which created a wide health definition. In the pba decision, the Court stated it now has to be of a substantial nature Implied the Court will not support human cloning.
What did we not get?A change of heart in Kennedy – still have 5 votes for Roe An overturning of previous Supreme Court decision such as Stenberg v. Carhart An opinion that undermined the central holding that abortion is right An open door fur future federal legislation for the other side: Thomas stated, “I also note exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause is not before the court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it.” Thomas seemed leery of the way commerce clause was used in this and gives opening to other side. For additional insights on this point, read this April 30 LegalTimes.com article.
What’s next in legislation? Mostly state legislation will be the future Will see state pba bans stronger than the federal ban Increased informed consent RU-486 regulation
Key cases in pipeline Planned Parenthood v. Rounds – South Dakota informed consent law requiring that women be informed that they are carrying a full, distinct human being Roe v. Crawford – 8th Circuit case regarding prisoner right of abortion – not for state to pay but for state to transfer Northland Family Planning Clinic v. Cox – 6th Circuit case regarding Michigan’s Legal Birth Definition Act Planned Parenthood v. Strickland – 6th Circuit case regarding regulation of RU486.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I don’t really think that it’s so much what the PAB ban did, as what it said. We were heard. It may feel like a whisper. But we were heard.
Anything that draws attention to the issue (abortion in general) is good. Many, many people STILL think abortion is only legal in the first 3 months, and if later, then only for the LIFE of the mother…
Maybe this will be an eyeopener. We should be taking advantage of this to show people the other horrendous types of abortion that will be done instead. They simply cannot imagine anything more gruesome than PBA…if they only knew.
MK, For quite some time I never knew what PBA was or how it was done. I was mortified when I found out what they really did. I suppose it was because I never knew anyone that admitted to having one. The women I knew all had first trimester abortions. I never had a way to research it either. Thank God for pictures and pro life sites.
Jill, you wrote: “The abortion industry, mindless of women’s health if it interferes with abortion, bulldozed FDA approval of RU-486 during the waning Clinton days in 2000 via an acceleration process supposed to be reserved for “life-threatening illnesses.””
That may be but at the time there was already more than enough documented use in Europe to justify approving RU-486 without any further discussion.
In any event the whole RU-486 debate is overblown. Methotrexate (or any of a large class of compounds, the DHFR inhibitors) can be used in exactly the same way. You won’t prevent any medical abortions by going after RU-486.
SoMG,
Satan is speaking though you. Reject him.
MK,
I agree with your post. I understand that 1 in 9 people that were pro-abortion, having heard the recent discussion, were converted to pro-life.
It’s amazing how many people don’t know how babies were legally slaughtered by the medical community.
We’ve got to get the word out.
Hey, could you pray for me?
In 2001, appearing at a NARAL/Pro-Choice America luncheon, Giuliani voiced the conservative case for abortion rights, arguing that it “might be more consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party.
“Because the Republican Party stands for the idea that you have to restore more freedom of choice, more opportunity, more opportunity for people to make their own choices rather than the government dictating those choices,” said Giuliani.
Tracytown, hogwash. Now there’s the reason you can stick a fork in Giuliani. He attempted to condone killing of preborn children by invoking the spirit of the party founded to overcome slavery? (And don’t bother with the liberal history rewrite that this wasn’t so.)
Giuliani’s abortion position will be his aspirational demise. What goes around comes around.
@Jill: Modern Conservatism is in favor of small government, correct? I am a political science minor and I’ve taken several courses on the subject (specifically courses on political ideologies) I’ve learned that Modern Conservatism is branched into the “neoliberals” or “libertarians” and the “neoconservatives”. Both neoliberals and neoconservatives are considered “conservative” as they believe in small government. However, the split comes in where neoliberals are like the classical liberals in the lane of John Stuart Mill and John Locke in stating that people have the right to do as they wish as long as it doesn’t harm others. On the other hand, neoconservatives are exemplified by William Kristol, as they believe morality ought to be legislated (which kind of defeats Modern Conservatism’s belief in small government).
So yes, Giuliani can still be considered a conservative, he’s just not a neoconservative.
Rae, I am so tired of the “legislate morality” crap. We cannot legislate morality but we can and do regulate behavior.
Laws against murder are neither conservative nor liberal.
That said, speaking purely of a political perspective, Guiliani staked a big government position by his support of abortion. A federal court overturned anti-abortion laws in most states by its 1973 decision. That is big government. Pro-aborts are now pushing a federal law guaranteeing abortion. That is big government.
The small/limited government mentality would say to leave the decision to the states.
I would say neither position is correct in the case of abortion. I would say we ultimately need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that the right to life extends to the preborn.
For now, though, I’ll take the small government position: Overturn Roe and let each state decide.
@Jill: I didn’t really mean it *that* way, but have you ever read Irving and William Kristol? They do believe in legislating morality, or at least “legislating correct behavior” or something.
*shrugs*
I am just curious about your opinion though, do you support small government or big government, and how do you think this current Presidency has affected government size and if that is inline with party ideology?
Yes, I’m sure they support legislating behavior and not legislating morality.
I support small government.
I think President Bush is a good man who has been of big benefit to the pro-life cause. He is obviously a social conservative. As for his fiscal politics, most conservatives agree they are mixed. He has done great on lowering taxes and encouraging business. But I disagreed with his Medicare prescription decision, for one. That’s all I can think of. I usually go to bed two hours before now… :)
Jill,
your correct.
As Justice Scalia said, Roe has to be dismantled piece by piece.
To Rae: The conservative position is pro-life, period. Mitt Romney has already passed him up here in the NH polls.
Thanks for the great posts Jill.
@Jasper: But why is conservatism pro-life? What is intrinsic to it’s ideology that makes you believe that way?
Jasper, thanks.
Rae, I wanted to add a PS on President Bush. He should be commended for trying to straighten out Social Security. The idiotic, short-sighted, self-serving, destructive Democrats/liberals thwarted him. We’ll all be sorry.
Jill, you wrote: “As for [Bush’s] fiscal politics, most conservatives agree they are mixed. ”
No, Jill, they are not mixed. They are an unmitigated disaster. All serious conservatives (as opposed to Bush toadies) agree on this.
@Jill: What do you think we should do with Social Security? I mean it is a good idea, but I’m pretty sure I won’t be getting ANY social security by the time I retire.
But yes, let’s just play a blame game on the liberals and Democrats, when this occurred during the Republican majority.
What do you think about allowing people to get their prescriptions from Canada?
“But why is conservatism pro-life? What is intrinsic to it’s ideology that makes you believe that way?”
I’ll answer.
We social conservatives have been useful idiots for a party dominated by fiscal conservatives and pols who don’t really care about us.
This is analogous to the way Blacks have been useful idiots for the Democratic party.
Nothing racist about it. Just to note that social conservatives share something in common with Blacks in our respective stereotyped parties — we’re maintained as constituencies by demagogeury from those we deludedly imagine represent us.
:-\
I’m a bit cynical of late.
@Rasquel: I’m not quite sure I understand what you’re saying…is there really nothing intrinsically pro-life to the conservative ideology?
It’s not President Bush they hate but the Lord who he embraces and the values He represents. We shouldn’t be surprised.
Look at what W has had to face since almost the beginning of his presidency: inherited a weakened military, SS in shambles, 9/11, a weakened economy because of Clinton era taxes, a prolonged war on terrorism, endless criticism from Democrats, the ACLU, NARAL, NOW, who all think George stole the election, etc., etc., etc.
No, W will go down as one of the great ones simply because he is a man of character and principle and does not base his decisions on every changing whim.
Clinton, the moral midget, the disgrace of a president, will be forgotten. The only thing he will be remembered for is a stained dress. So, so sad and he knows it.
I campaigned heavily and traveled with a gubernatorial candidate this past election season. Politics is vicious. Before you condemn conservatives just spend one day in their shoes and see what they’re up against: a liberal media, a homosexual hate machine, and godless liberals who hate everything that America traditionally stands for.
If it were up to liberals, pedophilia wouldn’t be a crime, speaking against homosexuality would be a hate crime, suicide would be a choice, God would be dead, marriage would be trampled on, everyone would be a victim, abortion would be without restriction and the government would take almost everything you worked so hard fro at your death…you’d be more free in Russia. Do we really want to live in this Sodom and Gamorrah?
SoMG:
It doesn’t matter what Bush does, the likes of you would condemn him.
I say why even bother with you and what you think? Your opinions are based soley on a man who embrraces his faith and you can’t stand that.
No, HisMan, if GWB had balanced the budget I would praise him for it. Or if he had done anything non-disasterous about health care, I’d praise him for that.
The Bush presidency is going to turn out to have been a great big practical joke on the American people.
I refuse to believe that blame on behalf of the administration can be placed on liberals. Both parties are corrupt. It’s rather scary, actually. So generally placing a blame on one party is sort of ridiculous in my opinion. Perhaps I will elaborate later, when I’m not about to keel over from my insomniac meds.
Oh, and yes SoMG, totally agreed. The administration should be held accountable but for some reason the American people are not doing so. Sad. Supporting only because he’s a republican is pretty ridiculous. Accountability for an administration is vital to eliminating bad decisions and corruption (regardless of party affiliation). Just common sense, really.
Rae:
“I’m not quite sure I understand what you’re saying…is there really nothing intrinsically pro-life to the conservative ideology?”
I can’t imagine why, except for accident of history. Of course, I don’t know what’s “essentially” conservative anymore.
What energy there is in conservatism per se on this, is likely to find a problem chiefly with Roe — not with abortion as such.
Seriously, pro-life folk are mostly useful idiots. For my part, I’m tired of dancing to that tune.
Bush, interestingly, is pretty much a genuine pro-life president.
Pro-Lifers Protest Pro-Abort Hillary Clinton at Catholic Charity Event (VIDEO)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=2191404
Mike
Good for them!!!!
Ok, so *really* off topic but…
I’m pregnant!
Wow, congrats, Lauren! When is the due date? Is this your first?
Score one for us!
Yay! Lauren is having a leech/parasite/freeloader/ zit/embryo/zygote/blastocyst/fetus!!!!!!!!!!!
I mean BABY
Congratulations. Give us the details!
mk
We have a 2 year old son. We’ve been trying again for about 13 months so we were beginning to lose hope of having another child. I just started seeing an RE and after one month of absolutely NO treatment I was pregnant!
Lauren,
That is so great! When is she due?
Jan 9th! I’m still in shock! I really wasn’t expecting to be pregnant this month (even though I’ve had crazy symptoms) because my positive HPT was a bit ambiguous. Then the doctors PT was negative. They decided to do a blood test and suprise! I’m pregnant! It looks like we had the dates I ovulated wrong because my levels are low but my symptoms are high.
I’m going in tomorrow to make sure my levels are rising, but I’m not too worried because I feel *really* pregnant.
@Lauren: Congratulations! January 9th is a good due date of course if it were three days earlier it would be better as that would be my birthday. ^_^
And you know what else is really interesting? 20 years ago today my mom learned she was pregnant with me!
Anyway, congrats and I hope it’s a girl (buying pink clothes is FUN)!
Haha we’ll if this little on decides to come a bit early we might just have a double birthday!
I’d be happy with either(of course), but it would be fun to buy some of the frilly girly things.
I’ve heard that girls give you worse morning sickness, and I’ve had quite a bit of that…so maybe?
I’m just so excited. Praise God!
That could be true…my mom was sick with me, she lived off saltine crackers, but that was also because she had severe gall bladder problems…so she was stuck eating cereal and fruit for 9 months. >_
Thanks, my last pregnancy was NOT at all smooth or easy, so I’m really praying that this one will be better.
With my son I was on hospital bedrest for 7 weeks after my water broke at 23 weeks. He was born at 31 weeks. Before that I bled the entire pregnancy. It was so scary!
So yeah, lot’s of prayers that this pregnancy will have NONE of that and be “normal”.
Normal is a relative term…though I definitely hope for a much less stressful pregnancy for you. :)
I’ll be happy if there is no prematurity! I do not want to see another of my children suffer. Thankfully it seems that my condition that led to my son’s prematurity has been cured. :)
Lauren,Congratulations!!! There seems to be a girl boom. Everyone I know has had them, or they will be. I just had a girl on the 19th. The best to ya!
Lauren –
As we have discussed before, my son was 9 weeks early too.
I had problems with pregnancy after that.
If you need someone to talk to that has been there, done that… just ask Jill for my e-mail address.
I am sooooo happy for you!!!!!!!!
Thank you Valerie I will!
I wonder why focus on the family is lying about what the supposed “ban” does?
Source: http://www.kgov.com
* Dr. Dobson Staffer, “3rd trimester abortion outlawed!”: after we learned that Focus on the Family’s staff and call center were giving out false information about what the PBA ban actually does, Bob Enyart asked his general manager Will Duffy, to place just one call to 1-800-A-Family (Dr. Dobson’s ministry phone number), to record the call, and to request no one in particular, but just ask the question, “What does the partial-birth abortion ban actually do?” On this show, you can hear Susan from the Focus on the Family correspondence department answer, “The U.S. Supreme Court made it illegal for women to have an abortion in the last trimester.” Later in the call, Will asks for a clarification: “Okay, so that’d be the seventh, eighth, and ninth months?” “Yes.” Bob Enyart also re-aired a clip from another pro-life ministry which provides totally false information about the ruling. Rob Schenck (pronounced shank) is president of Faith and Action and works also with the National Pro-Life Action Center which his twin brother Paul founded, both groups operating in Washington D.C. just across the street from the Supreme Court. The brothers have close ties to Pat Robertson and his American Center for Law and Justice, and Paul has worked for Jay Sekulow as executive vice president of the ACLJ. Bob re-aired the clip of Rob Schenck grossly misinforming Christians about the brutally wicked Gonzales v. Carhart ruling. Because the authority written into this law by pro-lifers never had even the possibility of saving a single child’s life, it is probably impossible to justify the 15 years and tens of millions of dollars wasted on this PBA ban by actually quoting what the Gonzales v. Carhart ruling actually holds. And as a result, pro-life ministries continue the long misinformation campaign about what the “ban” actually does, for in fact, it doesn’t even prohibit an abortionist from partially delivering a late-term fetus, and then killing the baby. The ruling is more of a PBA Manual, explaining in some detail exactly how an abortionist can legally perform a text-book partial-birth abortion, or how he can perform a four-inch variation on traditional PBA. The new procedure can be called a “Navel PBA.”
Will Duffy’s complete call to Focus is six minutes and 36 seconds long. You can download the one minute and 19 second excerpt that Bob aired, and the entire call.
For those who have not seen it please check this analysis out of the supposed “ban” by colorado right to life;
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37080
Congratulations Lauren.
Lauren, A new years baby!
Lauren, congratulations!!!