FINAL ANALYSIS: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

mike27183 · #1 10-29-2003, 07:58 AM

President Bush MUST sign the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 IMMEDIATELY!

I have just finished running a fine-tooth comb through the final revision of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, and it looks like a real attempt to try and stop some of the most horrific late-term abortions that take place in this country every day.

The good news is that there is NO health "loophole", which would have allowed exceptions for this procedure for something as minor as a headache, or mental illness. Also, there is no direct re-affirmation of Roe Vs. Wade; as SEC. 4 in the Senate version was completely removed.

My only two complaints are that the penalty for performing a partial-birth abortion should be extended up to 5 years in prison, instead of 2 years, and I'm also not too crazy about Roe vs. Wade being cited as a reference to justify the ban on partial-birth abortion. (But this was probably necessary so that the law would stand up in court, unfortunately.)

To summarize, this legislation should be signed immediately by President Bush. It is not a dog-and-pony show for pro-lifers. This is real legislation designed to save a small percentage of all the human lives that are taken by legalized abortion every year.

If Bush signs this legislation, then I will be "sitting on the fence" once again, regarding Election 2004. Bill Frist would either have to step down as Senate Majority Leader, or make sure that his father and brother ban all abortions at HCA, and return all profits from previous abortions, in addition to Bush signing S. 3, before my vote for Bush in 2004 could be guaranteed.

But I must say, in conclusion, that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is definitely a small, but very real step in the right direction.

Richard Borts · #2 10-29-2003, 05:15 PM

Hi Mike, I was wondering if you could give me some proof (if you havn't already)about Bill Frists support of abortion,could there be a mistake about his support?He may serve on a board of directors,but I am sure that it would take more than him to change the procedures of which the hospital allows,I am just wondering?could you give me the source?

Jadem Cog · #3 11-03-2003, 03:45 PM

And I hope the ACLU are fighting a lost battle on this.

mike27183 · #4 11-06-2003, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Hi Mike, I was wondering if you could give me some proof (if you haven't already) about Bill Frist's support of abortion. Could there be a mistake about his support? He may serve on a board of directors, but I am sure that it would take more than him to change the procedures of which the hospital allows. I am just wondering? Could you give me the source?

Here's the source, Rich:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=504

HCA is a hospital chain founded by Bill Frist's FATHER and BROTHER. 89% of Bill Frist's assets are invested in this very hospital chain, which provides abortions for profit. With those connections, do you still believe that Frist can't do anything about abortions provided at HCA!? And if he can't, then why doesn't he just wash his hands clean and sell all of his assets in HCA?

Sorry to break the bad news to you.

Condi Rice is also pro-abortion, BTW. Here's the link to that:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...1/059budmh.asp

Start reading from paragraph 7.

Hane · #5 11-06-2003, 02:17 PM

Mike:

The sum total of a conservative is not their stance on abortion.

Wanna give it a rest, please?????????????

Radical Conservative · #6 11-06-2003, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hane:
Mike:

The sum total of a conservative is not their stance on abortion.

Well Hane it's a big part of it for me

Hane · #7 11-06-2003, 02:42 PM

That's fine, Rad.

But some take the pro-life stance to such an extreme that they would rather lose an election than to have a pro-choice candidate.

The ranting and raving is very shrill and honestly serves no purpose other than make my party look as nutty as the Dems.

One issue does not make or break a candidate in my eyes. Especially if the issue is abortion.

Radical Conservative · #8 11-06-2003, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hane:
That's fine, Rad.

But some take the pro-life stance to such an extreme that they would rather lose an election than to have a pro-choice candidate.

I'd NEVER vote for a pro-abortion canidate (same thing as "pro-choice" you know that right?)

Quote:

One issue does not make or break a candidate in my eyes. Especially if the issue is abortion.

It does for me

TXNavy · #9 11-06-2003, 03:23 PM

I wouldn't vote for a pro-choicer either, *but* I would vote for a pro-lifer who realizes we're not going to completely defeat abortion anytime soon and spends their time on the victories that are within our grasp. The nation is unfortunately too evenly divided to give it up. That's why it wasn't such a hot button issue in the last set of national elections.

I don't worry about abortion in the long run...God will sort it out for them eventually

Richard Borts · #10 11-06-2003, 05:16 PM

All while babies die,right?I got a feeling God wants an end to abortion right now,whether we're ready to end them or not.All conservatives are doing is what moderates have been doing for years, going toward the middle ground so we can get a republican in there,I'm with Radical Conservative.Pretty soon we'll comprimise on so much that no one will know who the liberals and conservatives are.we should not comprimise on our rights or soon it will not matter if we lose them.