The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case challenging the Federal ban on partial-birth abortions. As readers of this space know, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 was passed by huge majorities in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. In the Senate the vote was 64 - 33 with three Senators not voting (no surprise here, the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, that giant of political thinkers and firm-stand-taking, was one of the three; Sens. Edwards and Biden were the two others.) Sixteen Democrats, including liberal extremist, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D, VT), voted for the ban of this barbaric procedures that the late, great, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D, NY) called infanticide.
I only point out the facts about the vote so that readers of this space will know how to interpret the lies and demagoguery of the liberal media when it reports on this story. Already the Boston Globe is shading their reporting with too many quotes from the Planned Childlessness crowd.
Also, as readers of this space know, the U.S. Supreme Court will not be directly commenting on Roe v. Wade in this case, no matter how much rhetoric the pro-abortion fans dump into the media. The U.S. Supreme Court will only be addressing whether the Federal government can place restrictions on certain types of abortions procedures. Obviously, the PEOPLE think restrictions should be placed on this gruesome procedure. For the umpteenth time since starting this space, I think the PEOPLE should decide these things. If you agree with me, be careful, you may be labeled an "extremist" by the radical Left.
This will be the first of many posts on this subject; my primary driver for posts will be articles or columns appearing in the Boston Globe; I'll correct factual errors when the Globe permits them and I'll rebut stupid arguments made by columnists (surely there will be many).
Anyway, the letter:
Editor,
Strangely missing from today's news article on the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to hear the case challenging the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (the Ban) was any mention that the vote to pass the Ban was 64 - 33 in the U.S. Senate and 281 - 142 in the U.S. House of Representatives. Odd, no? The most notable Senator voting for the Ban was liberal stalwart, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D, VT) (Justices agree to hear abortion case, February 22, A2).
Based on the pro-abortion rhetoric contained in the article, the many quotes and arguments from a representative of Planned Childlessness, and no mention of the vast support this Ban enjoyed from the PEOPLE, your readers already have reason to be suspicious of the Boston Globe's reporting on this issue.
A local point of interest, the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, was one of three Senators that did not vote on the Ban. No real surprise here. (End of letter.)
Oh, if you want to read a great column on political correctness gone crazy, check out professor Alan Dershowitz's column at boston.com/Today's Paper/Opinion.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case challenging the Federal ban on partial-birth abortions. As readers of this space know, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 was passed by huge majorities in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. In the Senate the vote was 64 - 33 with three Senators not voting (no surprise here, the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, that giant of political thinkers and firm-stand-taking, was one of the three; Sens. Edwards and Biden were the two others.) Sixteen Democrats, including liberal extremist, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D, VT), voted for the ban of this barbaric procedures that the late, great, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D, NY) called infanticide.
I only point out the facts about the vote so that readers of this space will know how to interpret the lies and demagoguery of the liberal media when it reports on this story. Already the Boston Globe is shading their reporting with too many quotes from the Planned Childlessness crowd.
Also, as readers of this space know, the U.S. Supreme Court will not be directly commenting on Roe v. Wade in this case, no matter how much rhetoric the pro-abortion fans dump into the media. The U.S. Supreme Court will only be addressing whether the Federal government can place restrictions on certain types of abortions procedures. Obviously, the PEOPLE think restrictions should be placed on this gruesome procedure. For the umpteenth time since starting this space, I think the PEOPLE should decide these things. If you agree with me, be careful, you may be labeled an "extremist" by the radical Left.
This will be the first of many posts on this subject; my primary driver for posts will be articles or columns appearing in the Boston Globe; I'll correct factual errors when the Globe permits them and I'll rebut stupid arguments made by columnists (surely there will be many).
Anyway, the letter:
Editor,
Strangely missing from today's news article on the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to hear the case challenging the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (the Ban) was any mention that the vote to pass the Ban was 64 - 33 in the U.S. Senate and 281 - 142 in the U.S. House of Representatives. Odd, no? The most notable Senator voting for the Ban was liberal stalwart, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D, VT) (Justices agree to hear abortion case, February 22, A2).
Based on the pro-abortion rhetoric contained in the article, the many quotes and arguments from a representative of Planned Childlessness, and no mention of the vast support this Ban enjoyed from the PEOPLE, your readers already have reason to be suspicious of the Boston Globe's reporting on this issue.
A local point of interest, the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, was one of three Senators that did not vote on the Ban. No real surprise here. (End of letter.)
Oh, if you want to read a great column on political correctness gone crazy, check out professor Alan Dershowitz's column at boston.com/Today's Paper/Opinion.
posted by Zack at 8:15 AM
3 Comments:
"liberal extremist", "liberal media", hmmm...
"Planned Childlessness", now that's clever!
If it raises taxes like a liberal extremist, if slaughters unborn babies like a liberal extremist and if it coddles terrorists like a liberal extremist, it must be a liberal extremist.
Loved Planned Childlessness. It is so accurate.
I get it, the Globe refers to anything not liberal as "radical right wing"; but don't alienate us by over doing your point.
Post a Comment
<< Home