How can you vote for someone who is for partial birth abortion

[barman]

Thanks for your answers. I didn't want to be presumptous about your opinions.

Fortunately, though public opinion to, "Would you agree to terminate a pregnancy?" is fairly divided between the public; the question, "Do you believe that terminating a pregnancy should result in criminal murder charges?" is answered Yes by a much smaller minority of Americans.

Thus you have your answer as to why John Kerry is not making it a key campaign issue. Relatively few Americans support criminalizing any form of abortion.

And Kerry also likely recognizes the legal writing on the wall, which to date has resulted in courts striking down previous so-called 'partial birth abortion' bills. The most recent federal legislation signed by GWB will suffer a similar fate over the next 24 months as various cases work their way upward.

 

[ROXY]

I think there are many things to take in consideration if you want to talk about abortion maybe if someone really close to you had to make that decision all of you would think different Daughter girlfriend sister?????

 

[truthteller]

Kerry wouldn't make partial birth abortion an issue because it would show what a heartless monster he is.

The government is trying to get papers of patients that had partial birth abortions done to see if it was medically necessary for the mother.

They are just asking for the data not any names or personal info but the liberals and the ACLU are fighting this siting privacy issues.

How can it be a privacy issue when no names or persoanl info will be released.

We all know why they don't want that data to be made public.

 

[Oceans11]

Abortion is not even an issue in europe.

(Cultural difference obviously.)

 

[barman]

TT: Kerry wouldn't make partial birth abortion an issue because it would show what a heartless monster he is.

BAR: To you, yes. But as noted above, a relative minority of Americans share your perception. So it's not urgent whatsoever that Kerry consider your point of view on this topic.

Since that was your original question at the top of the thread.
, I had presumed you were seeking an answer to that question since you created the Topic. Now it looks as if you weren't really seeking an answer, you just wanted to restate your minority position.

It's all good.

 

[barman]

As for the Ashcroft attempt to view patient records, yes of course the patients are rejecting the inquiries.

See, what most Americans believe, and what the law reflects is that the medical records of Americans are private and none of the government's business.

I like that privacy. Lucky for me most Americans share that view.

 

[xpanda]

Seriously, how many of these so-called 'partial birth abortions' (nice choice of words ... most of us would call them 'late term') even occur in a year outside of medical necessity? I have a hard time believing you have an epidemic of that type of abortion on your hands. I'm more inclined to think that the vast vast vast majority are in the first trimester (probably more like 10 weeks or less) where truthteller's incredible depiction of the process is not the case.

 

[truthteller]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by barman:

BAR: So it's not urgent whatsoever that Kerry consider your point of view on this topic.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are wrong on the above quote. Take a look at the story below and that's for his stance on abortion in general.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/16/kerry.catholics.ap/index.html

Privacy, please. That's pure spin in explaining why the liberal monsters don't want the records released.

No names or personal info are asked for by the DOJ on these patients. It's just basic data on PBA. It could be a record on a woman or a dog, the DOJ wouldn't know the difference.

------------------------------

Pat Buchanan and Bill O'Reilly for the White House

 

[kayaman+]

"liberal monsters"

I find this label kind of ironic. The bush family can hold wars (that of course are not about oil) in Iraq every few years. Reagan can fund an illegal war in a poverty striken 3rd world nation, prolonging a brutal civil war several years. Yet liberals are "monsters" for being pro-choice

.

[This message was edited by kaya man on April 19, 2004 at 10:27 AM.]

 

[xpanda]

Kaya, that's because Muslim 'ragheads' don't grow up to play baseball and eat apple pie.

 

[barman]

TTeller, you better watch out. All this weaving to the right and to the left across the road could cause a burnout on your tires....

Your last post quotes my comment that Kerry does not consider your point of view on abortion as urgent enough to respond to and you counter with more discussion about the Ashcroft attempt to subpoena medical records.

I'll presume you acknowledge that Kerry knows only a relative minority of people have such a stern view against abortion (those who do it should be charged as murderers and executed) so that's why he doesn't give it much attention.

As for the Ashcroft campaign, yes, privacy is indeed the key issue here.

Perhaps it says now that the patient's names won't be included. But if I were one of those patients and I knew what I know about Ashcroft's views on abortion and medical privacy in general I would fight with all I had to keep my records from him.

See, Ashcroft IS one of those who agree with your view on abortion. He believes it should be a criminal offense like murder and thus in many states, worthy of execution for all involved. In his 3+ years as USAG, he has personally put terminal medical patients in federal prison for 10+ year sentences just for using medical marijuana. He has targeted and charged doctors in Oregon who legally assist suicide.

When one takes these notes into consideration, they would have to be self-destructive to allow someone like Ashcroft anywhere near their medical records, regardless of how he may claim it's just for information only.

What if the 'generic' records were to be released and then upon examination, the AG determined that in his opinion, the terminations weren't 'neccesary'? Why then of course he would seek to bring criminal charges against all concerned and the names would be brought out. What other outcome can we project, given the AG's religious beliefs?

You're not suggesting that he would examine the records and then proclaim, "OK, these abortions were all right, so I'm done here."

Are you?

 

[ATL]

Until a man manages to squeeze out a kid in some sick genetic procedure any male should shut the hell up about abortion decisions, especially the 100 or so white males that want to decide for women what to do with their bodies and morality, this is a ridiculous campaign issue and shows the misguided efforts and energies of so many in our country

 

[truthteller]

Bar, you are spinning out of control or you are ignorant of the situation.

The government and Ashcroft have already put it on paper and signed into effect that they can not do anything against any of the women even if it was deemed that the terminations were not necessary.

Do you know the amount of law suits that would be brought against the DOJ if they did something like that? Plus, they would lose the elections over it.

Please, we all know why they don't want those records released.

BTW Atl, I am not white.

 

[barman]

TT: Please, we all know why they don't want those records released.

BAR: Yes, we do. They're PRIVATE. They are none of law enforcement's business. No one is obligated to release private medical records to law enforcement.

If the Justice Dept is assuring doctors they will not use the information against them legally, it seems clear that the doctors and patients involved don't believe them.

Given Ashcroft's religious beliefs, I don't blame them.

If you believe in Ashcroft's assurances, it's understandable why you would be puzzled that the patients don't say Yes to releasing the records.

But it's clear that the patients and doctors invovled don't share your confidence in Ashcroft's integrity on this topic. Therefore they are smartly saying NO to the JD request.

I don't blame them one bit.

I don't know if you know anyone doing federal time thanks to the Ashcroft JD, but I do. Several associates of mine have been given 10+ year sentences, with no chance of parole for 'crimes' that did not hurt another person or property, but simply conflicted with federal statutes. If he's willing to do that, how can you blame someone for fearing he would twist and swerve the system to punish 'murderers'? Because that is how Ashcroft views abortion - as murder.

John Kerry knows this as well, which is why he is encouraging the affected patients and doctors to stand their privacy ground.

 

[truthteller]

Legally it's not possible for Ashcroft and DOJ to do anything to those people.

The ACLU and other feminist organisations are mainly behind this because if the records are made available it will show that they can't continue with their murderous ways.

I would love to know why the DOJ would even try to go after these women and their doctors when it could cost them the elections.

Hmm, let me see. They only want records with no name, they sign a legal binding saying they can't go after anyone, it's an election year but they are stupid enough for some to claim they would.

I wonder who is stupid.

 

[barman]

Since you have such qualified legal knowledge, you should contact those involved and have yourself hired. I'm sure once they heard your legal opinion, they would all nod and say, yeah, our high level ACLU attorneys tell us that we should not release the records, and TTeller tells us it's cool, there's nothing to worry about.

yeah

You obviously have never been prosecuted criminally.

You still don't seem to get it, though.

Medical records are none of the government's business. Period.

Why are you so interested that they release the records if no charges can be brought? Are you that much of a voyeur that you want to read private medical details about other people?

What is your motivation here, if not to either bring charges now, or to use the information in hopes it may lead to a change in the law and future women, doctors and family members can be charged with homicide?

Oh, and I realize we've drifted far afield here. The Topic header was How Can You Vote For Someone Who Is For Partial Birth Abortion?

And the answer is again, we don't consider it a significant enough issue to base our vote on.

It's only important to a fringe group of Americans.

Get more friends who believe like you do and change the law.

I know, I know, you can't change the law. It's unconstitutional.

Sucks, doesn't it? (pun very intended)

 

[truthteller]

I guess the judge was wrong when he granted access to the Bush administration to records of women (no names) from the University of Michigan hospital.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What is your motivation here, if not to either bring charges now, or to use the information in hopes it may lead to a change in the law and future women, doctors and family members can be charged with homicide?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it will be used to change the law and that's it. It will help the Justice Department prove that partial-birth abortions take place almost entirely on healthy mothers and healthy babies.

You still don't get do you. These records will be used to overturn a law that permits legal murder and that's it.

Oh BTW, I wouldn't hold those ACLU lawyers in such high esteem. Not when you have them defending NAMBLA. But maybe you do support men having sex with boys.

Oh yeah you already support murder, so men raping boys should eb fine with you.

 

[WildBill]

What if they are proven wrong, that in fact most cases had a reason for it? Not too many doctors will do this procedure, it isn't something you just decide halfway through the pregnancy "gee, I don't think I want this baby after all" and find a lot of willing doctors to do this procedure. I just would love to hear the DOJ say that if their hunting proves them wrong, they will back down on their opposition to medical procedures. I am tired of lawyers, religious folks, and politicians telling me what are justified medical procedures and what are not. I much prefer hearing it from unbiased doctors thank you very much. And no the Senate leader isn't what I would call an unbiased doctor.

 

[barman]

TT, thanks for finally admitting the 'truth'.

Yes, the information being requested by the DOJ is hoped to help change the law so that future mothers, doctors and others involved with an abortion can be prosecuted as murderers and executed.

And you wonder why the women in question now are refusing to share the info?

Even if I had total immunity from prosecution, were I to know that information shared was going to result in other people being executed simply for having an abortion, I would for sure not cooperate.

Kudos to the women, doctors and attorneys involved in California who are standing up for medical privacy and telling the DOJ to take a hike.

 

[truthteller]

Bar,

Yes, it's been solicited to change the law and rightfully put future potential murderers like women and doctors behind bars.

You still don't get it, do you? I will try one more time.

The DOJ and the liberal organisations are in court right now to see if it's medically necessary to perform partial birth abortions. It's to decide if the current law on a ban on POB is just or not.

In order to make a correct decision, the court and the DOJ needs all information including records of people that had these type of abortions. Again, all names of patients are with held and these "murderers" can not be prosecuted.

It's like arguing about whether a law against drunk driving should be implemented or not. We have several people that were drinking alcohol while driving. However, they can't be tested for alcohol consumption to see if there is a correlation between drinking and motor accidents because of their privacy.

I know you are for murder but let all the facts be put out there for the judge to see if these people can continue getting away with it or justifiably be put behind bars.