Partial Birth Abortion @ MindSay 
I have been hammering on H.R. 1592 that would give to Left Wing bureaucrats and authorities to intimidate or jail Christians for Free Speech; i.e. if the House Bill went through the Senate and found the President’s desk.
The President has promised to veto any such legislation.
Thanks to a friend forwarding an e-newsletter from Jay Sekulow’s American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), I have discovered the Lefties in Congress have proposed legislation to undermine the Supreme Court’s judicial decision that eliminates partial birth abortion. The legislation is called the Freedom of Choice Act.
“Freedom of Choice” is Pro-Choice feminist double-speak for murdering babies in a woman’s womb. Pro-Choicers have desensitized themselves by adopting medical terms for babies that have not been born with the word “fetus.”
The word “fetus” gives anti-Christian moralists the mindset that an unborn baby is merely an internal organ like the heart or the brain.
Jay Sekulow reports that the President of the United States has assured him he would veto such legislation if it (also) came by his desk.
Here is the ACLJ petition that is adding power to the voice of the Right. SIGN IT!
By Ruth Marcus
Wednesday, April 25, 2007; Page A17
How nice of Justice Kennedy to look out for me.
Goodness knows, if I didn't have the justice and his buddies hovering, I might make a terrible mistake. I mean, I'm so impulsive and muddle-headed, I sometimes don't know what's in my own best interest.
Luckily, the Supreme Court does.
I'm referring, of course, to the court's insulting throwback of a ruling upholding the federal ban on the procedure known as "partial birth abortion."
The 5 to 4 decision was alarming for a number of reasons.
First, the majority's unstated but unmistakable willingness to dispense with inconvenient precedent. As nominees, the president's two choices for the high court treated us to pious pronouncements about their respect for the rule of law.
But they didn't flinch in overturning, in all but name, a seven-year-old case in which a differently constituted court, considering a nearly identical statute, came out the other way. For all that talk about impartially calling balls and strikes, Mr. Chief Justice, it turns out that it matters a whole lot who the umpires are.
Second, the Father Court Knows Best tone of Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion. "Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child," Kennedy intoned. This is one of those sentences about women's essential natures that are invariably followed by an explanation of why the right at stake needs to be limited. For the woman's own good, of course.
Kennedy continues: "While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained." No reliable data? No problem!
And I thought women were the ones who were supposed to be bad at science.
"It is self-evident," he adds, "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."
Therefore, "the State" can step in to assert the "ethical and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition." In other words, it can protect women from the consequences they may or may not experience as a result of the ignorance from which they may or may not be suffering.
But if Congress can ban the partial-birth procedure, why can't it express its "ethical and moral concerns" with the standard procedure for second-trimester abortions, dilation and evacuation? As Kennedy notes, this procedure, in which the fetus is dismembered before being removed, is "in some respects as brutal, if not more," as the partial-birth procedure.
Why can't Congress impose its ethical views by requiring any woman seeking an abortion to wait a few weeks, watch a sonogram of her developing fetus, listen to an antiabortion lecture?
And so much, by the way, for the conservatives' hymns to federalism. Now a state that wants to allow the procedure is barred from doing so -- even if its lawmakers believe that would best protect the health of women there.
Third, and most chilling, was the court's willingness to subordinate the health of individual women, and the individual judgment of physicians, to the moral whims of the majority.
The partial-birth procedure is used in a tiny fraction of abortions. But the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which represents 90 percent of the country's board-certified OB-GYNs, told the court that the partial-birth procedure could be especially useful for some women, especially those with serious illnesses such as heart disease, bleeding disorders and weakened immune systems.
The advantages of the procedure, including lower risk of perforating the uterus or leaving fetal tissue behind, and shorter time under anesthesia, could avert consequences such as "massive hemorrhaging, serious infection, and subsequent infertility."
The court ignored that, as it did the similar conclusions of the three trial courts that heard evidence about the procedure. Instead, it announced that the law could stand because "medical uncertainty persists," and because those challenging the restriction had not shown that it would be unconstitutional in "a large fraction of relevant cases."
But as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in her dissent, the point of a health exception is precisely for exceptional cases. Indeed, Kennedy seems to be as weak at math as he is at science.
"There is . . . no fraction," Ginsburg patiently explained, "because the numerator and denominator are the same: The health exception reaches only those cases where a woman's health is at risk."
This is a dangerous ruling, but I have some hope that its effect will turn out to be limited. Kennedy was horrified by the partial-birth procedure, no doubt sincerely. That emotional response may not carry over into his assessment of other abortion laws.
He may, poor dear, have been so overwrought he simply wasn't thinking straight.
Abortion is probably the central political-religious debate in America since abolitionism and prohibition. The politics of abolition was settled after much American blood was shed with the Union armies defeating the secessionist Confederate armies. Prohibition passed by Constitutional Amendment then was abolished by Constitutional Amendment.
The stage may be set to begin eroding Roe VS Wade with the recent 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion. I doubt the abortion issue will lead to a Civil War; however the more the Supreme Court erodes pro-choice/death proponents of abortion the greater the chance Congressmen will allow the people to decide via the Amendment process.
I think the Secular Humanists and Leftists fear just how much Americans entrust in Christian values (maybe not practices) rather than moral relativity. At this point it is a political propaganda war; however if the people decide I believe Christian morality will win the day.
If Christianity wins on abortion, homosexuality will be the next topic of the Amendment process. Powerful (moneyed) Leftists and homosexuals groups are vicious on that issue. The real fight for Christian morality will begin in the next stage.
This is one of the heinous evils perpetrated by mankind. The kid in the picture is the result of procedure known as partial birth abortion. You can see why this is murder, the kid is wholly formed before his life is extinguished. This child was pulled out feet first. The doctor leaves the head just inside the mother. This is down so as not to be accused of murder. If the head pops out, the status changes from fetus to human being legally. With the head still inserted in momma, the doctor uses some sort of sharp surgical instrument and stabs the kid the neck. The often times displays a visible spasm of pain quickly followed by death. Then the doctor sucks out the brains with some kind of surgical vacuum cleaner. Somewhere along the process arms are snipped off so that the child can be removed out of momma. IT IS MURDER. IT IS EVIL. IT IS WRONG.
**************************************
IMPORTANT PETITION BANNING PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION--YOUR HELP IS NEEDED
Kathie Walters
Good News Ministries
Email: kathiewalters@mindspring.com
Yesterday, I turned on the TV to TBN, and felt compelled to watch something I do not ordinarily watch, and I know it was the Lord. The show was Rod Parsley on Breakthrough Ministry, and he was talking about the critical need for us to send our request to the Supreme Court regarding the petition on Partial Birth Abortion.
He said that on NOVEMBER 8, the justices of the Supreme Court will be hearing the case of Gonzalez vs. Carhart, which will determine once and for all the Partial Birth Abortion decision. Many people thought that it was already determined because President Bush had signed a document on it, BUT opposers to it have taken it to the Supreme Court, as you may know, for a final decision, and so it is imperative that we also pray for the hearts of these judges who will render their decision. Horrifying Details of a Partial Birth Abortion
I was so absolutely horrified when a former nurse who had actually worked in an abortion center, described in detail the procedure, and what she experienced while working there. When she went to work there, she was under the assumption that the babies would not be alive.
However, that assumption proved false. She described a situation where a 26-year old woman, who was the first client of the day, had been brought (dragged) to the center by her parents and husband, because she was to give birth to a down's syndrome baby, and they did not want the child, though she did. The 26-year old mother cried and cried, so the clinic decided to do her first. They gave her something to calm her down, so that she would not upset the other clients who were also there for abortions.
Once in the room, to the nurse's complete shock, she saw the doctor pull the child from the mother's cervix. He pulled the baby out, but left the head in three inches so that he could not be accused of "murder." The baby's heart was beating, it was moving, and its little feet were kicking. The baby was pulled out feet down--then the doctor took some scissors and plunged it into the back of the neck of the child at which point the nurse saw the child jerk and then go limp. The doctor then took a suction machine (a little bit like a vacuum cleaner) and sucked the brains out of the child and discarded them.
To the staff's surprise, the mother insisted on seeing her baby, so they wrapped up the baby, got her up, and presented it to her in a blanket. The mother screamed a horrific scream and cried hysterically, "God, forgive me--I did not want to do it!" The nurse said that after several more clients received the same procedure, she was so physically ill, she could never return again---and she is now speaking out against it. I was sickened to hear and see what was done, and to realize overwhelmingly the utter devastation of that "choice"--and just I wept and wept.
And that is why I am sending this to you, asking that you would consider making your voice heard to these justices as I have now done, by going to the website www.breakthrough.net, click on the link to the Partial Birth Abortion Petition, and signing the Partial Birth Petition.
Perhaps you have already signed others, but I really feel the urgency of making our voices heard, speaking life for those who have no voice...I ask that you link with me in prayer for these justices to uphold the constitution, and the 70% of Americans who do not want partial birth abortion, and for those who now know the truth of what is really being done in those abortion clinics in the name of "pro-choice."
Believe me, I know!!! I realize that some of you have been praying on these issues for a long time--and that it is the very heart of God.