As expected, the feministas are having a fit over the recent USSC ruling on partial birth abortion where, in a 5-4 vote, Justices upheld the partial birth abortion ban passed by Congress & signed into law by the President back in 2003. Leading the charge to ‘protect a woman’s right to choose’ is Senator Barbara Boxer who, along with House Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), has proposed legislation aimed at ‘codifying’ abortion:
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Two US lawmakers introduced legislation Thursday aimed at codifying a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy, one day after the Supreme Court banned a controversial late-term abortion procedure.
The proposed law would codify abortion rights for the first time, said Democratic Representative Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), who joined the effort launched by Senator Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record).
The legislation “would bar government — at any level — from interfering with a woman’s fundamental right to choose to bear a child, or to terminate a pregnancy,” Nadler said.
“We can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to protect a woman’s constitutional right to choose” he said.
“This Supreme Court may have gone out of the business of protecting women’s rights; it is time that Congress stand up to the challenge.”
I was mildly amused to see Boxer’s statement on her website in response to the PBA ruling, where she invoked the ‘conservative’ makeup of the USSC as if to suggest that the ruling was based on ideology rather than the rule of law:
Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today made the following statement:
“Today’s decision brings home in clear terms the impact of President Bush’s Supreme Court choices. As a result of today’s ruling, the health of women who have dangerous pregnancies is now in deep jeopardy. Women who are in need of this banned procedure will be denied it, even if they risk losing their fertility, becoming paralyzed, or sustaining organ damage. The consequences of today’s dangerous decision can only be overcome by a shift back to the center on the Supreme Court, or by passage of my Freedom of Choice Act, which I will be reintroducing in the near future.”
But back when the court issued it’s unfavorable to Bush ruling on the EPA and global warming, Boxer didn’t bother to note the makeup of the USSC - because she thought the ruling was a vindication for gw alarmists:
Senator Boxer said, “This decision puts the wind at our back. It takes away the excuse the administration has been using for not taking action to deal with global warming pollution. We will be calling the EPA before the committee later this month to ask them how they plan to use their authority under the Clean Air Act to begin to address the challenge of global warming. We now have a two-track process for addressing global warming – comprehensive legislation and administrative action.”
So the gw decison had nothing to do with the ‘ideological makeup’ of the court, but the one on PBA did?
Gotcha, Babs.
And BTW, isn’t it interesting that Boxer and Nadler are basically trying to ‘override’ the USSC ruling with this legislation? I want to emphasize that statement by Nadler again:
The legislation “would bar government — at any level — from interfering with a woman’s fundamental right to choose to bear a child, or to terminate a pregnancy,” Nadler said.
Heh. Do they really think a law like that would stand up to USSC scrutiny?
Now just imagine if the President had done the same thing after the USSC ruling on the Gitmo … we’d hear cries of “King George” all over the place (moreso than we do already).
Democrats: Do as we say, not as we do.
Update: Speaking of moonbat Senators, Joe Biden is blaming the VTech massacre on …..
Republicans.
| Email This Post | Print This |
This would mean no more tax dollars for abortions, as that would be interferring. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 4/20/2007 - 12:59 pm
Fine. If Congress is able to pass this law, then that is how it should be. And if the president vetoes it, then that too is how it should be. The entire issue should be settled by legislation (and preferably at the state level). It should never have involved “legislating from the bench” in the first place.
If the Several States had been left to deal with the abortion issue back in the 1960s and 1970s, as should have been the case, we would not be having this conversation now.
Comment by Leslie @ 4/20/2007 - 2:33 pm
I wish the people writing the news would stop saying that the Supreme Court banned partial birth abortion. They did no such thing. They upheld the ban written and signed into law by Congress and the president. It is such an important distinction, because the Supreme Court does not rule this country, but I think some liberals would like it if they did (or would have liked it prior to Bush’s appointments.)
Comment by Jennifer @ 4/20/2007 - 2:33 pm
Well, it actually was initially passed by Congress and upheld by the courts due to a challenge of its constitutionality. Babs and Co are essentially saying they are wanting to ‘override’ the ruling, which is something they’d freak out over if it were Bush doing it.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 4/20/2007 - 2:36 pm
Biden is a complete moron. I can only imagine what would have happened had a Republican blamed the VT massacre on democrats. Our “watchdog” media would have been all over that, you can bet.
I am seriously starting to wonder about the mental capacity of some of these democrats in office. These are dangerous times, for sure.
Comment by NC Cop @ 4/20/2007 - 3:47 pm
“I am seriously starting to wonder about the mental capacity of some of these democrats in office.”
Don’t be coy, NC. I’d wager that, like me, you’ve been convinced of their mental deficiencies for some time. I’m giving Biden the nickname, “Smokin’ Joe” Biden, as in, “What’s he been smokin’?” What a loon.
Speaking of loons, Boxer and Nadler are incensed at the prospect of losing a vote-getting position to support. By defending the indefensible, they are assured of votes from the dreg contingent who wouldn’t be voting at all without something like this to draw them out. The Dems like to think they are champions for the little guy. Well who’s littler than the one who is just a fertilized ovum? I can’t believe the abortion issue has gotten as far as it has without that point being settled without question. That is, when is one a person entitled to Constitutional protections?
Comment by Marshall Art @ 4/20/2007 - 6:10 pm
Note that Reid voted for the ban, and then whines about the SC upholding it. I guess this was another case where he was misled, like on the Authorization To Use Military Force in Iraq, he didn’t think anyone would actually DO it!!! How dare the SC actually support the ban, preventing him from playing both sides of the fence like that. It’s all due to Bush’s evil conservative judges, smearing egg on his face like that…
Comment by Severian @ 4/20/2007 - 6:21 pm
Sev, Reid was for the ban before he was against it. It’s all a matter of nuance, you see.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 4/20/2007 - 6:50 pm
Barbara Boxer - 100% voting record on environmental protection issues. 100% voting record on pro-abortion issues.
Get the next Barbara Boxer re-election bumper sticker: ” Save the Trees, Kill the Children “
Comment by Fight4TheRight @ 4/20/2007 - 11:04 pm
….long before she became a US Senator, Babs Boxer made her bones as a very liberal congresswoman. Always a loud proponent of abortion. And always anti-military.
Comment by Tango @ 4/21/2007 - 9:31 am