Supreme Court Starting to Make Correct Decisions
By Kevin Roeten (04/21/07)
A 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court on 4/18 began their mark in history. They upheld President Bush's 2003 ban on Partial Birth Abortion. But more accurately, it began the fall of 'pro-abortionists' that is similar to the fall of the Roman Empire. And the 'High and Mighty' always tend to fall hard.
Let’s eliminate emotions for a second. Let’s try to remember that a mere ~23 seconds before the procedure the baby could have been removed from the birth canal and considered a full human, with all his/her rights to ‘life’. Who knew that the birth canal would contain such power as to dictate life or death? We must forget that the baby could have been removed by Cesarean months ago, and retained all rights afforded to a ‘life’. And we must certainly forget that the baby feels incredible pain during the ‘D&E’ procedure(Partial Birth Abortion), where she/he is partially removed from the birth canal, and their head is punctured and the brain is sucked out. We must also forget that the ‘doctor’ is cognizant of the baby’s obvious pain, as he/she is the one who must hold the baby’s wrangling legs still, while the head remains in the birth canal with its screams unable to be heard.
One must question anyone who decides to put a human through such anguish. One must also question the obvious agenda of a supposed ‘objective’ reporter who always uses terms such as ‘anti-abortion forces’, ‘abortion opponents’, and ‘anti-choice’—over the proper terminology of “pro-life”. It is known who butters their bread.
Probably the biggest argument pro-abortion forces use is that the ‘procedure’ is used to protect the woman’s health. First, one must assume that a person’s ‘life’ is not as important as a woman’s health. Second, it must be assumed that there is a danger to the woman from the birth. Third, most health professionals say that this ‘procedure’ is usually done without ever considering the woman’s health. They also say that partial birth abortion is never necessary for the health of the woman, that a ‘c-section’ or regular birth is as safe or safer. A partial birth abortion is essentially a ‘birth’ in any case. Has anyone ever asked the baby how she/he feels about this ‘procedure’?
But the biggest pitfall is when something with moral implications gets to be a political football. Unfortunately, the above law does not ‘ban’ abortion, but only one of the procedures for it. Harry Reid(Nv/D) decried the ruling and said that Sandra Day O’Connor(recently retired SC Justice) would have been a much better choice with this decision than Samuel Alito(existing SC Justice who voted FOR the ban). Interestingly, Reid had voted FOR the ban twice recently.
Kennedy, an alleged Catholic, has no qualms about making sure abortion remains an alleged ‘right’, and has seemingly abandoned his faith. Even though he just voted against the procedure of partial birth abortion, he believes all other forms of abortion should stay legal.
Most Democrats believe that this decision is a dangerous harbinger of more ‘pro-life’ indentations into Roe vs. Wade. They also believe that ‘pro-lifers’ will work incessantly until Roe is overturned. They are likely correct. More fireworks are bound to come.
But when one looks at the outcome of each viewpoint, ‘pro-abortionists’ want to save a convenience that’s existed since ’73. ‘Pro-lifers’ only want to save lives. Anyone want to wager a bet if Roe is eventually overturned?
Kevin Roeten
(Printer friendly version) Email: Kevin Roeten
