The US Supreme Court is trying to get back in my good graces...

The Supreme Court is trying to get back on my good side, by upholding a ban on partial-birth abortions. For reasons that anyone familir with the birthing process know full well, a BREACH BIRTH, where a babie's legs come out first rather than the head, is a bad, dangerous thing! And yet, a breach birth is artifiically induced ON PURPOSE as 'Step 1' of a partial-birth abortion. Realize that before the "surgeon" sticks a scaple in the back of the babies' head to kill it, 80% of the kid is already OUTSIDE of the woman's body...the remaining part is only the head, and the ONLY REASON it's left in the birth canal is for the fig leaf of ethical dignity in that the baby was killed "in the womb"--not outside of it--even though 80% of the little guy is already outside of the mother's body...

The pretense that we need this procedure because it's SAFE is an outright lie, there's nothing safe about it, especially if you are the little dude getting the knife in the back of your neck. It's done for the pure sake of convenience, as it's easier to yank the little guy out and stab him in the neck than it is to use the other method: dismemberment of the child while it's INSIDE of the mother's womb.

You see folks, if you chop a baby up while it's INSIDE of a mother's womb, that is a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT -- never mind the fact that I have yet to find ANY copy of the Constitution that mentions the word "abortion" or anything related to it. It must be in the index or something...

But if you were to take a baby and slice it up AFTER it comes out of the mother's womb, why that's MURDER. In the womb, a RIGHT, out of the womb, MURDER. It's an amazing thing the fine line between legality and prison, isn't it? Any questions?

Well that's your lesson in the logic and rational of liberal left-wing thinking for today. Thank you very much.

An excerpt from the Trib:

The U.S. Supreme Court handed conservatives a long-sought victory Wednesday, upholding a nationwide ban on a medical procedure that opponents call "partial-birth abortion" and giving lawmakers more leeway to restrict the practice of abortion in general.

Experts on both sides of the abortion divide predicted the ruling would encourage state and federal governments to impose tighter regulations on abortion, but said there was no indication the high court was any closer to reversing Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision that guaranteed women the right to terminate a pregnancy.

The 5-4 ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, said the federal abortion ban signed into law by President Bush in 2003 does not violate that constitutional right. Opponents of the ban "have not demonstrated that the act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Kennedy said.

The majority opinion was joined by Bush's two Supreme Court appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, as well as by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the ruling "alarming" because it failed to respect the court's abortion precedents, including that the woman's health should be the doctor's paramount consideration. Wednesday's decision "deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety," she said.

She called the majority's justifications "flimsy and transparent" and said they did not bother to conceal their hostility to abortion rights: "Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label 'abortion doctor.' "

Ginsburg's dissent was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

The law bans a rare and controversial surgical procedure performed after the first trimester of pregnancy.

In a reaction typical of abortion-rights activists, Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, said the two new justices "did what they were put on the court to do: strike a blow against women's fundamental right to choose abortion."

Meanwhile, the National Right to Life Committee, which was instrumental in passing the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 and similar state laws, applauded the decision, as did other anti-abortion groups.

SOURCE: Chicago Tribune: 18 APRIL 2007: Court backs ban on abortion procedure