This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by

le photo

<< x BlogxPhiles x >>

Wednesday, June 02, 2004

Dizzy from the Spinning  
Following the decision, the Bush re-election campaign said: "Today's tragic ruling upholding partial-birth abortion shows why America needs judges who will interpret the law and not legislate from the bench. ... John Kerry's judicial nominees would similarly frustrate the people's will and allow this grotesque procedure to continue."

The people's will? Anyone remember voting on this? I sure don't. This is hardly legislating from the bench. It was ruled unconstitutional, which is an interpretation. Furthermore, the ruling did not uphold the procedure. It found the law inappropriately written.

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee voted to restrict late-term abortions when the measure contained a "clear exception for life or health of women."

"However, George Bush pushed through a different piece of legislation that failed to protect the health of women and that is what the court struck down today," she said. "When John Kerry is president he will appoint judges that are committed to upholding the Constitution, not pursuing an ideological agenda."

See, if they'd just put this tiny phrase - exception for life or health - the law would still be standing. That's the issue. The way the law is written, women die.

Of course, this is not a real issue; it's merely a political ploy. Fact is, no doctor ever does an elective intact D&E (or, as the right wing likes to call it, "partial-birth abortion"). All these procedures are done to save the woman's life or health. All these procedures are medically necessary.

So the real issue, the real question, is: should doctors be allowed to use this procedure to save a woman's life? Bush says no. If it was your wife, your sister, your mother, your friend in that hospital bed what would you want?

Full Story