While the US Supreme Court has long recognized abortion as a
fundamental right, even though it is not specifically written
as such in the U.S. Constitution, the Freedom Of Choice Act
will make abortion a legally-recognized fundamental right. As
a result, once this horrible piece of legislation is signed
into law by Obama, it will basically invalidate and reverse
any "statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order,
decision, policy, practice, or other action" of any federal,
state, or local government that would "deny or interfere with
a woman's right to choose" to have an abortion. As I explain
in "Obama, McCain And The Bush Legacy", currently, hospitals,
clinics and medical professionals can refuse to participate
in, or to facilitate, an abortion, based upon an act of their
conscience. The Freedom Of Choice Act will reverse this right
and will make anti-abortion professionals vulnerable to law
suits, etc., if they fail to perform an abortion upon demand.

Based on the previous points, it seems obvious that no true
Bible-believing, God-fearing Christian can possibly support
the agenda of the incoming president; and his record on gay
and lesbian rights is just as bad, and equally troubling.

But let's return to the efforts of the Bush Administration.
In all fairness, it should be noted that failure to overturn
Roe v. Wade was not due to President Bush's lack of trying to
accomplish this goal. During his eight years in office, Bush
in fact appointed a number of conservative judges to the U.S.
Supreme Court. In one of its more recent rulings in April of
2007, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the highly controversial
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act by a vote of 5 to 4. As you
may recall, this bill was passed by the U.S. Congress, and
signed into law by President Bush in November of 2003. This
important piece of legislation makes it a crime for doctors
to perform any "overt act" to "kill the partially delivered
living fetus". Those who violate this law may face criminal
prosecution, fines and up to two years in prison. While in
office, President Bill Clinton vetoed this bill two times.

And that is not all that George Bush managed to accomplish.
In addition to his controversial Supreme Court appointments,
during his presidency, he appointed sixty-one judges to the
federal appeals courts, the majority of which lean towards a
conservative viewpoint. The appeals court system consists of
thirteen circuits, of which ten are controlled by Republican
appointed judges, according to an October 2008 article in the
New York Times.

During his term in office, President Bill Clinton appointed
sixty-five judges to the federal appeals courts. It has been
estimated that the number of federal judges appointed by the
Republican Party, most of them conservative, will have risen
about twelve per cent; from fifty per cent, to sixty-two per
cent, since George W. Bush first took office. The movement
to advance a "conservative legal revolution" actually began
during the Reagan Administration.

These aren't the only developments which occurred during the
Bush years in the hope of eventually overturning Roe v. Wade.
In 2006, the Child Custody Protection Act, (also known as the
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act), was amended to
title 18 of the Federal Criminal Code; or the United States
Code, as it is also known. This bill makes it a crime for any
doctor to perform or to induce an abortion on an out-of-state
minor in violation of parental notification requirements. The
act also mandates that physicians provide a twenty-four hour
actual or constructive notice to a parent of the minor child
who is seeking an abortion. Violators of this act are subject
to a fine, and could spend up to a year behind bars as well.
However, as passed, this bill does allow for an exception if:

1. the physician complies with parental notification
requirements in the physician's state;

2. the physician is given documentation that a court in the
minor's state of residence has waived parental notification
or otherwise authorized the minor's abortion;

3. the minor provides a written statement that she is the
victim of sexual abuse, neglect, or physical abuse by a
parent and the physician notifies appropriate state
officials of such abuse;

4. the abortion is necessary to save the life of the minor
(written notice must be given to the minor's parent within
24 hours after the lifesaving abortion is performed): or

5. a person accompanying the minor provides documentation to
the physician that such person is the parent of the minor.

As tough as it sounds, this act is not bullet-proof, and does
have legal loopholes. But there is more. While these two acts
do make it more difficult for a minor to obtain an abortion,
they don't make it entirely impossible for them to do so. The
reason for this is simple; and that is because abortion laws
differ from state to state. At this current time, there are
forty-four states that have abortion laws which require that
a minor's parents be involved in the decision-making process.
However, the level of parental involvement varies. The level
of parental involvement can be broken down as follows:

a. In twelve states, a minor can obtain an abortion without
parental consent; however, she is required to notify at least
one of her parents ahead of time regarding her decision. The
one exception is the state of Minnesota, where both parents
are required to be notified of the girl's decision to have an
abortion.

b. In twenty-three states, a minor cannot obtain an abortion
unless she first acquires parental consent from one parent.
The exception to this are, I believe, Mississippi, North
Dakota and Texas, where the consent of both parents is
required before an abortion can be granted to a minor.

c. In two states, Oklahoma and Utah, parental consent and
parental notification must both be provided before an
abortion can be performed on a minor.

d. In nine states, the situation is rather nebulous, as
parental involvement laws have either been blocked by a
particular court order, or else they are simply not being
properly enforced.

e. Tragically, there are six states where there are no laws
concerning parental involvement. These are Vermont,
Connecticut, New York, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii. Also
included in this group is the District of Columbia.

As if the situation isn't already loose enough, as we saw a
moment ago, in some situations, the Child Custody Protection
Act does allow judges to issue court orders which permit a
girl to obtain an abortion even without her parents' consent.
For example, in the state of West Virginia, a physician who
can demonstrate that he/she has no financial attachments to
the abortion provider, can perform an abortion on a minor.
There are likewise some states where it is acceptable for
grandparents, or other family members, to be involved in a
minor's choice to have an abortion, instead of the parents.

While the state of Mississippi has very strict anti-abortion
laws, so that only one abortion clinic has managed to survive
there, (at least legally), it is obviously not the only state
where the abortion war is being waged. In March of 2006, two-
term Governor Michael Rounds of South Dakota signed into law
a bill which made it a felony to perform an abortion, unless
it could be proved that it was absolutely necessary in order
to save a woman's life. The general consensus in both camps
was that the purpose of the South Dakota law was to challenge
Roe v. Wade head-on. As was expected, abortion advocates went
on the attack, and the law was ultimately repealed by a voter
referendum in November of that same year.

On November 4, 2008, voters in South Dakota were again given
an opportunity to accept, or to reject, a new amendment which
would ban abortion except in the case of rape, incest or when
there is a serious health threat to the mother. Sadly, this
initiative also failed. The Pro-Life camp has vowed to carry
on the battle another year. Another initiative in Colorado,
which was also on the November 4 ballot, and which would have
defined a fertilized egg as a legal human being, also failed
to acquire a majority vote.

Before continuing, let me mention here that one term that you
will see me using a lot in this series is "abortionists". To
avoid any kind of confusion, when you see this word used, I
am referring to anyone, whether they are a physician, or any
other kind of medical professional, or an organization, or a
woman, or a young girl, or anyone else, who practices, fights
for, supports, promotes or defends the practice of abortion.
If you refer to yourself as pro-choice, then in my view, you
are still an abortionist, because you want to have the right
to choose whether or not to have an abortion; which signifies
that you favor abortion. In short, unless a person is clearly
opposed to abortion, then in my view, they're an abortionist;
because there is simply no sitting on the fence when it comes
to this important issue. Having said that, let's continue.

One tactic which is frequently used by abortionists in order
to try to justify their hideous crime, is to emphasize the
right to privacy issue. It worked quite well for them in the
past, and they are obviously hoping that it will continue to
work for them for years to come. In case you weren't aware of
it, it was precisely the right to privacy issue that resulted
in the Roe v. Wade ruling prevailing thirty-six years ago in
1973. Roe v. Wade determined that at that time, most laws that
banned abortion in the U.S. were in violation of the right to
privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution.


Jeff Snyder, SysOp - Armageddon BBS  Visit us at endtimeprophecy.org port 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Download Center 4 Mac BBS Software & Christian Files.  We Use Hermes II


--- Hermes Web Tosser 1.1