Ivory Dome

I’ve always wondered what happens to these children of late and early term abortion. Now we know.

The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

The grusome procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman’s uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion, often these children are near full term.

“Today’s decision is alarming,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent.

Of course this is really meaningless as the law will not reduce the number of near term abortions performed because an alternate method — dismembering the fetus in the uterus — is available and, indeed, much more common.

More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday’s ruling.

I know there are no names for these innocent  children, but if there were, I wonder if any would be included on any on any of the memorials for so many other innocents that are so brutally murdered each year? There should be one.

There’s been a great deal of debate lately about the Michael J. Fox commercials on stem cell research. Regarding Missouri Amendment 2, Fox admitted this weekend in the Stephanopoulos interview that he’s never actually read the Amendment. 

In light of the debate about whether the Amendment prohibits or legalizes cloning, and in the pursuit of informed debate, I thought it might be useful to post a link to Amendment 2:

 http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp

If the Amendment passes, Section 38(d). 2.(1) of Article III of the Missouri Constitution would read:

 No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

That seems straightforward enough, until you read the definition of “clone or attempt to clone” in Section 38(d) 6.(2):

“Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being. [Emphasis added.]

So, it appears that the prohibition of cloning only applies to reproductive cloning; the cloning of embryos over and over and over again from the same fertilized egg for the purpose of research is totally legal under this Amendment, as long as a fetus or human being isn’t the end result.

I wonder how many Missouri voters really understand this? By his own admission, Michael J. Fox didn’t.  Not all people who oppose reproductive cloning also oppose cloning for the purpose of research.  But to say that the Amendment bans all cloning is simply not true.

One of the greatest crimes of our century has been grossly misjudged Roe v. Wade case that legalized the systematic murder of children. Out of abortion has grown an even more barbaric practice, partial birth abortion. A accurate description of this procedure is worth seeing.
The Supreme Court has agreed to take a case out of California concerning the constitutionality of the national ban on partial-birth abortion. This is the second case involving the ban on partial-birth abortion that the high court has agreed to hear. As you may recall, Congress approved a national ban on the procedure. The law was challenged in three separate cases in the federal court system in Nebraska, New York, and California. In all cases, the ban was declared unconstitutional. The high court first agreed to hear the case out of Nebraska (see below). The ACLJ, which has been involved in defending the national ban since its passage by Congress, is supporting the government’s position defending the ban and is representing members of Congress in an amicus brief filed with the high court. Like the Nebraska case, the Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in CA case in the fall of 2006. The case is Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.
I just learned of this group tonight and the facts above, about this case are from there.
I have mentioned this channel before, and again there are many things here that I’m not interested in, but there are very good historical stories. There is also, a good news segment at 6pm. I heard this case was about to come before the Supreme Court tonight. It’s funny that I’ve not heard a word about it on any of the regular news programs. I was amazed to see Lawyer’s for the adlj speaking in a way that made me think that maybe there actually are lawyers, who really care about something besides a fat paycheck. They explored in detail this case. Lets hope that with the recent improvements in the court the absolutely horrendous act of partial birth abortion will finally be made a part of a tragic time of past history and not the future.