Welcome to Gaia! ::

As most of you may know, I live in Wisconsin, USA. In my town of Kenosha there is a free magazine that one can pick up at gas stations and pharmacies everywhere, called "ACTION Magazine". It contains articles and such from local writers, reporters and such things. I'm typing out the article that caught my attention: "Wisconsin Right to Life" by Rosemary McNeill, president of Wisconsin Right to Life.
----
The recent Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on partial-birth abortion is one you may not want to read over coffee at breakfast. It describes an abortion procedure that induces "Eyes Wide Shut". But five justices, with eyes wide open, made visible to the public the truth about this method of abortion that could rightfully be called infanticide.

The shock of this type of abortion is not that some people find it repugnant, but that some people do not. In the name of reproductive freedom, the pro-aborts are so far from reality that any killing of babies in the womb is justified. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent from the majority in Gonzalaz v. Carhart, opined it would put "a woman's health at greater risk". She can't figure out why anyone cares which type of abortion is used. She is right to conclude, however, that the law "saves not a single fetus from destruction". There are other methods just as heinous and disgusting.

Nor is there any evidence to suggest partial-birth abortion is used to protect the physical well-being of the mother. A quote from Ron Fitzsimmons, head of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, explains, "in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."

So why outlaw one method of baby killing in favor of others? As the American Medical Association explained, the fetus "is killed outside the womb." Too close for comfort to "infanticide". With the recent court decision, the unborn child is treated more in line with the care a human being deserves just because he or she exists. And what difference does it make if a human being is inside or outside the womb?

The Supreme Court's decision does establish a line between abortion and infanticide by allowing lawmakers to ban the killing of a mostly born child, but it also does more. IN the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, the court said that states have a "legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life," and even admitted the court had gone too far in denying states' discretion in regulating abortion. However, the Court turned its own decision inside out in Stenberg v. Carhart, the 2000 ruling striking down Nebraska's partial birth abortion ban, ignoring the promise of Casey and further expanding the abortion license.

In Gonzales, the high court returned to a decision that appears promising for the fate of pre-born children. In its opinion, the high court called abortion "killing". This was not true in the previous court cases. Unwilling to state when life begins, some justices referred to children before birth only as "potential life" and abortion "termination of pregnancy". Also, the justices ended the usual deference to the "health exception" which actually nullified the law. Medical claims included "all factors"-emotional, familial, age and so on, related to well-being.

How is it that even in the 21st century we are even discussing the killing of developing babies in the womb? Are we no more civilized than the barbarians of old? A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It's time to stop executing innocent babies in the womb. It's time to put an end to capital punishment for the unborn and repeal the infernal decision Roe vs. Wade.
----
That's the entirety of the article, typed word for word.
I plan to write to the editor of this magazine, with an article of my own that I'd want to see published, in response to this one. But I want to know what you guys think. Obviously it's an atrocious article, using words such as "pro-aborts" and "barbarians" to describe pro-choicers.

You know, I did a search and found nothing about Ron Fitzsimmons on the NCAP website. There's something rather suspicious about that, if you ask me. Plus, it contradicts Planned Parenthood's figures. If they were on the same side, why would they have such drastically different numbers?

I'm therefore led to believe the quote is fabricated or taken out of context.

In fact, none of the pro-choice side/medical organization quotes are found on the web -- the AMA has little to nothing to say about D&E.

All the half-truths and spin aside - Innocent until proven guilty? I don't know, I'd like to think catching fetuses in the act of occupying the body of (raping) the women they are inside of pretty damned guilty. ninja Just sayin'

Next time I'm on the MN/WI border, I'm going to throw rocks at Wisconsin.


lol pro-choice= pro-abortshun loloololol
stare