Abortion issue same old song and dance . . . with same partners in crime

By Kaye Grogan

How can a woman's life be in any danger after the baby is 90 percent born? Surely, most medical experts know when a woman's life is in peril during childbirth, but that doesn't stop the incessant rhetoric — to the contrary.

There should be a major concern evolving around the proponents of abortion, who have a mind-set that there is justification for the "Partial Birth Abortion" procedure — and pretending the "barbaric" procedure is constitutional clearly stretches the limits. This type of dangerous mentality goes beyond all credibility and logic. Abortion needs to be called what it is: "legalized" murder.

The pro-choice advocates, and liberal judges, would prefer everyone believe banning this grotesque procedure is "unconstitutional" hoping you'll be foolish enough to embrace the ridiculous sporadic spin. This acceptance would make the lives of liberals so much more uncomplicated and simpler, as millions of innocent lives are snuffed out.

While you're preoccupied with other issues, the Democratic filibusters are plotting strategies to block the confirmation of conservative judges to appease the radical pro-abortion groups holding their feet to the fire.

It's the same old song and dance routine and the same partners in crime doing the two-step.

What is it going to take for these people to concede and admit that every time an abortion is performed — it stops the "beating" of a heart?

The pro-choice folks are going to have a difficult time explaining to God how "unconstitutional" it was to save the lives of His precious little babies. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes for any amount of money, when the day of "reckoning" rolls around!

Abortion mills pay an exuberant amount of taxes to local, state, and federal funds. So naturally, the liberals in government fear the fallout as far as the monetary aspect of abortion goes, and the reliance they can put into the annual boost to the economy due to killing "helpless" children -if the atrocious Roe V. Wade decision was reversed, and the slaughter mills shutdown. Don't you find it the least bit appalling that abortionists and your government are getting wealthy off of the killing of little innocent babies? I certainly do!

Have you noticed how the spotlight has moved "conveniently" away from the slaying of innocent babies, to the soldiers in Iraq? Of course, it's tragic that we have lost one soldier in Iraq — or any other war for that matter, but at least these men and women had a fighting chance — whereas little innocent unborn babies have to take whatever comes their way — whether it's a comfortable warm hospital nursery crib or cut up like chicken parts, and thrown into incinerators. If Americans don't find this daily routine disregard of life, repugnant — I would like to know what they do consider repulsive?

In just a few weeks, the abortion issue will heat up considerably, as it makes its way back to the front burner through the confirmation of possibly two new U.S. Supreme Court judges to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, and Justice Rehnquist (if the rumors pan out that his resignation is forthcoming).

If the liberals cross their fingers — maybe, another judge similar to Justice O'Connor and Justice Dave Souter could fool President Bush, conservatives alike, and slip through the crack. This would be a total eclipse of the judicial system . . . AGAIN.

Since liberal judges are a "dime" a dozen (make that a penny per dozen) finding loyal conservative judges, will definitely be an uphill battle and challenge.

Don't you find it amazing how liberals can hold abortion as a litmus test to not confirm judges, while conservatives are not supposed to use abortion as a litmus test to confirm judges? Oh how they love to practice double standards, when they should be getting double whammies!

Hopefully, President Bush is smart enough to forgo asking liberal Democrats for their input in the crucial decision he must make selecting the right type of judges to replace vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Asking the Democrats for advice in selecting judges that will follow the rule of law, and the Constitution to the letter — is like asking the "Red Sea" to part again.

Many people in the judges' confirmation rumor mill are all but certain that the frontrunner to replace O'Connor is Alberto Gonzales. Since Gonzales is pro-choice and against parental notification, his appointment would rile up President Bush's Christian base, and this move would be similar to the eruption of St. Helen. While President Bush is in his final term, he can't afford to alienate conservative Christians, if he wants to help keep Republicans in power — and if he is laying the groundwork for his brother Gov. Jeb Bush to occupy the White House sometime in the future. The president's only hope is to keep the red states content and in step with the Republican Party.

Before too much longer, the U.S. Supreme Court will have at least one if not two, new members in their elongated black robes. It is imperative that the U.S. Supreme Court have justices that will (correctly) interpret the laws, and not allow personal feelings or agendas to overtake their rationale and adept judgement.

We already have enough lawbreakers in society . . . and we certainly don't need any more . . . especially, if they are wearing intimidating black robes, and pounding gavels.

And that's just my opinion!

© Kaye Grogan