Bush... a wolf in sheeps clothing?

[Knight]

I am pulling some posts from a previous thread to get them all in one place. I want to really explore the claim that George W. Bush actually appoints pro-abortion judges.

I think most of us right wingers agree that we wish Bush was more focused on issues of biblical morality especially in regard to abortion and homosexuality issues.

However we also must be honest and look at some of the things he has done that are good things (besides freeing Afghanistan and Iraq).

Pro-aborts generally hate George Bush which is a somewhat of a good sign. Sometimes its interesting to read what your enemy is saying. Lets read some of the things that abortion rights groups are saying about Bush and abortion.

The following is taken from "The Truth about George." which is a left wing pro-abort website.Bush & Co. to Women: Male Lawmakers (Not You or Your Doctor) Know What's Best For You
On Nov. 5, George W. Bush signed into law the most significant restriction on abortion in the 30 years since Roe v. Wade. Accompanied by a cadre of men, Bush delivered what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called "a slap in the face to women across America" by signing the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Pelosi, angered by the celebratory nature of the bill-signing event, decried the gathering as "a group of men celebrating depriving women of a medical procedure that could save their health and their lives." Opponents of the ban hope that this will be "a wake-up call to voters who support abortion rights."
Sources: The Washington Post, "Bush Signs Ban on Late-Term Abortions Into Effect," Nov. 6, 2003; San Francisco Chronicle, "Bill-Signing Photo Angers Pelosi: Men Surrounded Bush When he OKd Limits on Abortion," Nov. 8, 2003; New York Times, "In Anti-Abortion Campaign, One Leap for Incrementalism," Nov. 6, 2003

Ashcroft's Civil Rights Division to Enforce Abortion Procedures Ban
Adding insult to injury, the Bush administration has given the civil rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice the task of enforcing the dangerous new ban on abortion procedures. Despite the fact that three federal judges have already blocked enforcement of the law (a nearly identical state law was declared unconstitutional just three years ago), the Justice Department, under John Ashcroft, said it "will continue to strongly defend the law ... using every resource necessary." The decision to charge the civil rights division rather than the criminal division with enforcement of the law has provoked outcry. Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee accused Ashcroft of "perverting the federal government's role in promoting civil rights." In a letter to Ashcroft, House Democrats said "it is Orwellian that you would have the civil rights division enforce a law which has been essentially found by the Supreme Court to violate the civil rights of millions of American women." Groups opposing abortion rights see gaining civil rights for fetuses as another step towards the eventual overturn of Roe v. Wade.
Sources: Associated Press, "Government Promises to Defend New Abortion Law," Nov. 7, 2003; The Guardian, "Fury at Bush's Civil Rights Policing of Abortion Ban," Nov. 8, 2003

Bush Administration Goes After Non-Profits That Oppose His "Abstinence Only" Policy
Salon.com reports that "some nonprofit organizations that don't agree with the Bush administration's 'abstinence only' philosophy" have been "repeatedly investigated by the government, while faith-based groups get a free pass." Advocates for Youth, a national nonprofit that provides teens with comprehensive sex education, had never in its 18 years as a federal grantee been subject to an audit by the government. Over the past year it has been subjected to three. The organization claims that "it's being unfairly targeted because of its negative views towards the administrations abstinence-only education policies." Their claims are supported by a leaked Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memo published by the Washington Post in July 2001. The memo describes Advocates for Youth as "ardent critics of the Bush administration." And Advocates for Youth are not the only ones being targeted. Three reviews have been conducted over the past 10 months of San Francisco's STOP AIDS program. The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SEICUS) has undergone two audits this year. While Advocates for Youth, STOP AIDS, and SEICUS have all "come through their audits with flying colors," last year a number of faith-based organizations receiving federal grants were found guilty of misusing government money. For example, a number of sex-education programs funded by Louisiana Governor Mike Foster's Program on Abstinence "were found guilty in a federal court of openly violating the constitutional tenet of separation of church and state." However, none of these Louisiana nonprofits have been subject to an HHS audit. James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth says, "Our complaint is not with getting audited" but "with the selective and political nature of these audits. Ideology is invading—if not subverting—science within the Department of Health and Human Services."
Source: Salon.com, "No Sex, Please—Or We'll Audit You," Oct. 28, 2003

Bush Expands Global Gag Rule
President Bush issued an executive memorandum over the Labor Day weekend expanding the global gag rule to include family planning funds administered by the U.S. Department of State. The "global gag rule" is a policy that denies United States family planning funds to any international organizations that perform abortions or refer patients to abortion services, even with their own funds. Bush's latest action extends the gag rule to all assistance for voluntary population programs funded through the State Department. The Center for Reproductive Rights reports that "this drastic expansion means that more of the world's most vulnerable women, including refugees, will be denied basic health care services."
Sources: Executive Memorandum, "Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning," August 29, 2003; Center For Reproductive Rights, "Expanded Global Gag Rule Limits Women's Rights and Endangers Their Well-Being," Sept. 5, 2003.

UNFPA, Condemned by Bush Administration, Loses Additional $50 Million in U.S. International Family Planning Funds
With a narrow majority, the House of Representatives voted to block $50 million in international family planning funds to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), based on the unsubstantiated argument that the program supports China's coercive population control policy. The Bush administration and some GOP lawmakers disparaged UNFPA—a program which provides millions of dollars to promote contraception, as well as safe birthing and child care practices for poor women in more than 150 countries—saying that it violates U.S. law by supporting China's "one child" policy, which they claim sometimes entails coerced or forced abortions. Yet UNFPA officials assert that the program does not promote abortion, and an investigative panel convened by Bush last year reported that there was no evidence that UNFPA promotes coerced abortions or involuntary sterilizations in China. Despite the panel's findings, the Bush administration withdrew $34 million from the program in 2002 and did not request any funding for the program in Bush's 2004 budget. As a result of the House vote, it appears that UNFPA will not receive any funding this year either.
Source: Washington Post, "House Blocks Family Planning Funds," Juliet Eilperin, July 16, 2003

House Votes to Ban Safe Abortion Procedures; Bush Has Repeatedly Promised to Sign Bill into Law
In what could become one of the most significant restrictions on abortion in decades, the U.S. House approved the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban bill, H.R. 760, on June 4. In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush urged Congress to give him a bill he could sign, and has repeatedly promised to sign the legislation, which passed the Senate earlier this year in a slightly different form. The bill would ban an array of safe, common abortion methods used in the second or third trimester of pregnancy, and provides no exception for the woman's health. A number of abortion rights groups, including the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the National Abortion Federation, have said they will immediately file suit to block the legislation once the president signs it.
Sources: Washington Post, "House Votes to Restrict Abortions," Juliet Eilperin, June 5; New York Times, "House Bans an Abortion Method," Robin Toner, June 5; Associated Press, "Abortion Bill Approved By House," Jim Abrams, June 5.

Bush Attempts to Confer Personhood on Embryos
The Bush administration changed the mission of the Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection—which oversees the safety of human research volunteers—to include embryos. Although the committee can only advise the Department of Health and Human Services to offer embryos the same federal protections offered to fetuses, children and adults, many consider this move the latest in Bush's attempts to confer personhood on embryos and fetuses. According to the Washington Post, many have "called the move an inappropriate political and religious intrusion." The modifications potentially limit embryo research, which scientists expect could provide cures for a number of degenerative diseases.
Source: The Washington Post, "New Status for Embryos in Research," Rick Weiss, Oct. 30, 2002

Validity of Charges Against UNPFA Questioned by Knight Ridder Investigation
Debunking Bush & Co.'s trumped up charges against the United Nations Population Fund (UNPFA), an investigation by Knight Ridder has raised more questions about the validity of claims made by the Population Research Institute (PRI) that UNPFA knowingly supported China's coercive family planning programs. The allegations made by PRI—which is headed by anti-abortion and anti-family planning Steven Moshe—led to Bush's July withholding of more than $34 million in funds that Congress had appropriated for UNPFA. The administration recently announced that it would transfer the $34 million to a United States Agency for International Development program that aims to improve children's health in other countries.
Sources: The Associated Press, "Bush Transfers U.N. Population Funds," Scott Lindlaw, Sept. 30, 2002; Knight Ridder, "Small Advocacy Group Influences American Policy," Jodi Enda, Sept. 22, 2002

Administration Withdraws Funding for Family Planning
The White House announced it plans to withhold $34 million appropriated by Congress for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), a decision that according to many observers will cost innumerable women and children their lives. Conservative extremists claim that UNFPA supports China's coercive abortion and sterilization programs, although a State Department investigation found no evidence to back those claims. UNFPA estimates the lost funds will translate to two million more unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 more abortions, 4,700 more dead mothers and 77,000 deaths of children under five.
Source: Agence France Presse, "U.S. Withdraws Millions from the UN Population Fund Over China Program," Stephen Collinson, July 22, 2002

Bush Administration Tries Underhandedly to Designate Fetuses as Persons
Bush's Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, announced a scheme to promote fetal personhood, by designating fetuses as children eligible for funds under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). While the Bush administration claims the move was fueled solely by a desire to extend prenatal care, activists expressed concern that the goal of Thompson's proposal is to undermine abortion rights. Activists also lamented that the Bush administration did not simply extend full prenatal health care to all pregnant women.
Source: Knight Ridder, "Bush Administration Ignites Abortion Debate with Health-Care Proposal," Jodi Enda, Feb. 1, 2002

Bush Addresses Anti-Abortion Protestors
On the 29th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Bush addressed anti-abortion rights marchers via cell phone, saying: "Everyone there believes, as I do, that every life is valuable; that our society has a responsibility to defend the vulnerable and weak, the imperfect and even the unwanted; and that our nation should set a great goal that unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected in law."
Source: The White House, "President's Phone Call to March for Life Participants," Jan. 22, 2002

Bush Declares 29th Anniversary of Roe "National Sanctity of Life Day"
Bush declared January 22, 2002, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, "National Sanctity of Human Life Day" in a proclamation that not-so-subtly likened abortion to terrorism. The proclamation stated: "On September 11, we saw clearly that evil exists in this world, and that it does not value life ... Now we are engaged in a fight against evil and tyranny to preserve and protect life."
Source: The White House, "National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2002," Jan. 18, 2002

Bush Nominee Declares Support for Reevaluation of Mifepristone
At his confirmation hearing, Bush's Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, indicated that he would seek FDA re-evaluation of mifepristone (formerly known as RU-486, or the "abortion pill"). The Bush administration also restricted Medicaid funding for mifepristone to cases of rape, incest, or to preserve the pregnant woman's life.
Source: Newsweek, "The 'Abortion Pill': Not Stocked Here," Jane Spencer, June 19, 2001

Bush Reinstates Global Gag Rule
On his first day in the Oval Office, Bush reinstated the infamous Global Gag Rule, cutting off U.S. funding to international family planning organizations that offer abortion counseling or services with their own privately-raised funds, lobby the host government for abortion law reform, or disseminate information about abortion. The policy had been instituted under the Reagan administration in 1984 and had been overturned by President Clinton.
Source: The Washington Post, "Bush Reverses Abortion Aid," Mike Allen, Jan. 23, 2001

Bush Supports Ban on Military Women, Dependents Abroad from Obtaining Abortions at Military Hospitals
Bush supports the policy that prohibits military women serving abroad, and their dependents, from obtaining safe medical abortions at military hospitals, even if they pay with personal funds. As a result of current policy, servicewomen must travel long distances for an abortion or have an abortion locally, which is extremely dangerous in some countries, especially the Middle East. They must also obtain permission from their commander, in another difficult hurdle, in order to take leave for the procedure.
Source: NARAL, "The Powers of the President: Reproductive Freedom and Choice"So again.... I am not trying to say that Bush is perfect or even near perfect but I also feel its important to realize he isn't as "pro-choice" as some might have you believe.

[ SOURCE (http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/women) ]

[Knight]

From the same source.....

Even Some Republicans Cannot Stomach Bush Judicial Nominee
The Hill reports that Senate Republicans are currently blocking one of Bush's judicial nominees. Leon Holmes, nominated to a seat on the U.S. District Court in Arkansas, has not been scheduled for a floor vote by Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) after being reported out of committee without recommendation. Holmes' judicial writings have provoked much controversy, including a comment relating to a rape exception for a constitutional amendment banning abortion. Holmes called the issue a "red herring," saying that "conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami." Beyond Frist's failure to schedule a vote, four Senate Republicans, Arlen Specter (Pa.), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Susan Collins (Maine), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), have expressed serious doubts about Holmes. Find out what's at stake with our courts and read more about nominee Judge Leon Holmes.
Source: The Hill, "In Twist, GOP Blocks Bush Nominee," Nov. 19, 2003.

[Knight]

And more.....Bush Nominates Right-Wing Extremist to D.C. Circuit Court
On July 25, Bush nominated Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit Court, which handles many high-profile federal cases and is considered a steppingstone to the U.S. Supreme Court. Brown is seen as the most conservative justice on California's Supreme Court. In a joint report, People for the American Way (PFAW) and the NAACP reveal that Brown has a record of ideological extremism and judicial activism that makes her unfit to serve on the appeals court. Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington Bureau, expressed deep concern regarding Brown's "hostility to fundamental civil and constitutional rights principles." PFAW President Ralph G. Neas says Brown "embodies Clarence Thomas' ideological extremism and Antonin Scalia's abrasiveness and right-wing activism." Adding to these concerns, abortion-rights groups have pointed to Justice Brown's dissent in a California case in which she harshly criticized the other justices for overturning a law requiring parental consent for minors seeking abortions.
Source: People for the American Way, "Far Right Dream Judge Janice Rogers Brown joins Lineup of Extremist Appeals Court Nominees," Aug 28, 2003.

[Knight]

And more....William H. Pryor Jr.: Regarded As Most Controversial Nominee of Bush's Tenure
In nominating Alabama's attorney general, Bill Pryor, for a lifetime appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, Bush has selected what Senate aides from both parties are touting as the most controversial nominee of his presidency. As an outspoken conservative throughout his career, Pryor has as recently as 1997 berated the Supreme Court's decision to legalize abortion in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case. Additionally, Pryor vociferously objected to the repeal of the Texas sodomy law recently struck down by the Supreme Court, and remains a staunch opponent of the enforcement of the separation of church and state. Pryor is a firm supporter of capital punishment and has been criticized for his failure to attend to issues of discrimination and environmental protection.
Sources: Washington Post, "Judicial Nominee Admits Mistake: Pryor Regrets 'Octogenarian' Comment," Mike Allen, June 12, 2003; New York Times, "Senate Judicial Panel to Weigh Another Contentious Nomination," Neil A. Lewis, June 11, 2003This guy sounds awesome!

[Knight]

You gotta love this one.....Bush Judicial Nominee Called Gays "Queers"
Bush's nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, Claude A. Allen, is on record as having referred derisively to gay people as "queers." At the time of the incident, Allen was press secretary for the re-election campaign of former Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), one of the staunchest foes of gay rights in Congress. According to the Houston Voice, Allen, who is also a supporter of abstinence-only sex education, is Bush's eighth judicial nominee with known anti-gay views.
Source: The Houston Voice, "Bush Pick for Appeals Court Called Gays 'Queers'," Lou Chibbaro, Jr., May 2, 2003

[Knight]

Still more....Judicial Nominees: Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Nominations Resubmitted
Bush announced in early January that he is resubmitting the nomination of Judge Charles W. Pickering and Justice Priscilla Owen to the 5th Circuit Appeals Court. Pushed by Sen. Trent Lott, Pickering's initial nomination was rejected last March by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Like Lott, Pickering has a deplorable past on race issues, including writing an article as a law student suggesting ways to strengthen the state's anti-miscegenation laws; establishing contacts while a Mississippi state legislator with a commission established by the state to oppose integration efforts; and going to great lengths to try to secure a more lenient sentence for a defendant convicted of burning a cross on the lawn of an interracial couple. Bush also renominated Judge Priscilla Owen, a staunch opponent of women's reproductive rights, as well as a number of judges whose positions and opinions are so controversial that their nominations died in the last Congress.
Source: New York Times, "President Renominating Federal Judge Lott Backed," Neil A. Lewis, Jan. 7, 2003

[Knight]

It's really interesting how the left-wing is in TOTAL opposition to Estrada. Check out what the AFL CIO says.....The Estrada filibuster is the latest development in the Bush administration’s drive to pack the federal courts with ultra-conservative, extremist candidates. In January, with the Senate under Republican control, Bush renominated a group of ultra-conservative appointees to the federal courts with troubling records on civil rights, workers’ rights and other fundamental protections.You would think the left would like this guy if he were such a liberal.

[ SOURCE (http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/civilrights/ns02132003.cfm) ]

[Knight]

The official AFL-CIO view on Bush's judcial appointments is as follows.....If the Bush administration gets its way, the courts will be skewed for generations to come, putting crucially important rights and protections at risk. Almost all of the federal appellate courts—the most powerful courts in the country next to the U.S. Supreme Court—will be dominated by conservative appointees.

This is all the more outrageous because many of the seats Bush now wants to fill with ultraconservative appointees are only vacant because Senate Republicans blocked President Clinton's appointees to those very same seats. This includes three seats on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee; two seats on the 5th Circuit, which covers Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana; and two seats on the powerful District of Columbia Circuit, which hears the vast majority of employer challenges to the decisions of the NLRB. Republicans now are trying to take advantage of their own obstructionism and pack the courts with ultraconservative appointees.[ SOURCE (http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/civilrights/judicialappointments.cfm) ]

[Knight]

Yet more of what a different enemy is saying.....Bush screens his appointments primarily for their right-wing ideology in matters of civil rights, civil liberties and criminal law. A study published in July by law professors Robert Carp, Kenneth Manning and Ronald Stidham in the respected legal professional journal Judicature evaluates the decisions of Bush appointees and compares them to those made by other federal judges dating back to the Johnson administration. Not surprisingly, the George W. Bush judges were rivaled only by those of Ronald Reagan, siding 65 percent of the time with the government against claims by individuals seeking to vindicate or expand constitutional rights. This was as true for Bush’s female and minority appointees as it was for his white ones.November 22, 2004
Judicial Chainsaw Massacre
By Stephen J. Fortunato Jr.

[ SOURCE (http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1706) ]

[Lighthouse]

Ah. Now I see. However, I still do not think he is as conservative as I'd like a president to be. He's still a republican.:chuckle:

[Frank Ernest]

Judicial Chainsaw Massacre - Fortunato:
"Not surprisingly, the George W. Bush judges were rivaled only by those of Ronald Reagan, siding 65 percent of the time with the government against claims by individuals seeking to vindicate or expand constitutional rights. This was as true for Bush’s female and minority appointees as it was for his white ones."

FrankiE:
Why should I believe (or assume), as Mr. Fortunato does, that "individuals seeking to vindicate ..." are always legally correct?

Why should I believe (or assume) that the government position is always wrong in these cases?

Why should I believe (or assume) that "female and minority ..." have anything to do with the subject.

Why do I think Mr. Fortunato is just another commie political screeder?

[avatar382]

You're kidding yourself if you think the so-called "Partial Birth Abortion" act does anything to really curb abortion.

The vast majority of abortions are performed during the 1st and 2nd trimesters. 3rd trimester abortions (D&E, aka "Partial Birth") are usually only done because

1.) the fetus is already dead
2.) a medical emergency

In any case, if you believe a fetus is a human being, why is a D&E procedure any worse than say a D&X? (fetus is dismembered and then removed in pieces) Why would ANY abortion procedure be any worse than any other?

What is the point of the legislation then? To keep Bush's religous right supporters happy. It is a political game. The GOP is a lot of things, but you are kidding yourself if you believe that it is truly pro-life.

[cattyfan]

from the article "The Politics of Religion"

The irony is that even though he is touted by most to be a conservative and deeply religious, George Bush is attempting to play both sides, as well. For example, he says is unequivocally pro-life, but refuses to commit to overturning Roe vs. Wade. And he often disagrees on some very controversial issues with the policies of his declared denomination of Methodist:

• Bush is a supporter of capital punishment. The United Methodist Book of Resolution reads, “There can be no assertion that human life can be taken humanely by the state.”
• Bush opposes legal abortion except in cases of rape or incest, (a position which is neither firmly pro-life nor really pro-choice.) His church accepts legal abortion as long as it isn’t used as a form of birth control or to select a baby’s sex.
• Bush is against homosexuals serving in the military. His church supports gays being allowed to serve.
• Bush advocates concealed carry laws. His church is opposed to ownership of handguns and believes guns should be banned.
• And the issue of Iraq provides another bone of contention. Jim Winkler, head of the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, denounced the buildup to war in August of 2002: “I ask United Methodists to oppose this reckless measure and urge the president to immediately pursue other means to resolve the threat posed by Iraq.”


I put the section on his abortion stance in bold.

[Knight]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Ah. Now I see. However, I still do not think he is as conservative as I'd like a president to be. He's still a republican.:chuckle: Yea I agree... but the question here is....

The assertion has been made that Bush appoints pro-choice judges.

Is that really true?

I have yet to find such evidence.

[Aimiel]

Why don't we bring this to an end, by praying, and seeking for God to bring us Presidential candidates which will do His Will once they are elected?

[Knight]

Originally posted by Aimiel

Why don't we bring this to an end, by praying, and seeking for God to bring us Presidential candidates which will do His Will once they are elected? I think most Christians do make that prayer.

However most Christians wouldn't agree on what God's will... was.

Furthermore...
That prayer wouldn't help us along in determining if the already elected president appoints pro-abortion judges.

[BillyBob]

Specter: I Won't Block Pro-Life Judges

NewsMax Wires
Thursday, Nov. 18, 2004

After two days of appealing to fellow GOP senators, embattled Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania said he would make a public statement to assure Republicans at large he would not block anti-abortion judicial nominees from President Bush.

“I’m working on it,” Specter said of the statement after receiving more Senate support despite calls from anti-abortion conservatives that he be skipped over as the next chairman of the Judiciary Committee.


Specter, a moderate on abortion rights, has been trying to repair the damage caused by his postelection comment that Democrats would probably block judicial nominees who would try to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case legalizing abortion.

“And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning,” he said then.

Since then, he has been trying to reassure Republicans that he would not stand in the way of Bush’s nominees if he takes over the Judiciary Committee next year when current chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah steps down because of term limits.

He’s been on radio and television and telling senators one by one and in groups that he doesn’t have a litmus test on abortion for judges. In addition, he’s been stressing that Democrats plan to filibuster against conservative judges regardless of what he does.

“People are looking to him to provide some assurance, so he’ll make a statement,” said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who is in line, in terms of seniority, to become the committee’s chairman if Specter is passed over.

Senators have said that there would have to be some kind of public reckoning for Specter to smooth over relations with abortion opponents, and to give them some political cover from the e-mails, faxes and phone calls they have been receiving.

But nothing Specter says will satisfy some conservatives, who say he has a track record of opposing their issues.

“When Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions or John Cornyn would make a great chairman, why in the world would Republicans take the great risk of trusting Specter?” said Jan LaRue, lawyer for the conservative Concerned Women for America.

Nevertheless, the Senate’s No. 3 Republican, staunch anti-abortion advocate and fellow Pennsylvanian Rick Santorum, offered Specter support.

“I think everyone knows that I have been a supporter of Sen. Specter throughout this process, in his re-election,” Santorum said. “I expect him to keep his commitments, to move judges out of committee, and to be an advocate of the president in getting those judges passed.”

Specter spent most of Tuesday talking to noncommittal Senate leadership and to GOP Judiciary Committee members, who will take an official vote on his chairmanship in January.

That vote, whichever way it goes, can be appealed to the full GOP caucus, which heard from Specter on Wednesday.

No one would say what Specter told senators, and that includes Specter. “Under no circumstance would I begin to tell you what I said,” he said afterward.

But no one spoke out for or against Specter during the meeting. At the same time, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Specter’s comments “were received well.”

Even before the meeting, Specter was getting public statements of support from colleagues like Hatch, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., and Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.

“He was just restating the facts about potential challenges with a Supreme Court nominee before the United States Senate,” Snowe said.

His subsequent statements since Election Day, said Warner, have been “clear as a bell — no ifs, ands or buts. I think he’s made clear the circumstances under which he made that statement, and he should be given the opportunity to serve.”

[drbrumley]

Knight,

Do you really think the Supreme Court will do what we want and outlaw abortion? The best that will happen is they rule it is a states' right issue. And that changes nothing. Then Roe v Wade starts all over again on the federal level under a different case name and we get the same decision as in 73.

As for your wanting evidence, I can't give it with respect to Bush nominating pro-abort judges. At least none you will accept. I have already shown you a couple times Mr. Bush's own quote on abortion. He would council his own daughter or family member that it is her decision to make. He also would not put up a fight in cases of rape and incest. That is NOT Pro-Life. And your crazy if you think Bush will do anything different then what he has been quoted.

[Knight]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Knight,

Do you really think the Supreme Court will do what we want and outlaw abortion? I don't know.... but that isn't the isue.

That is NOT Pro-Life. And your crazy if you think Bush will do anything different then what he has been quoted. Aren't we the folks who say... look at a persons actions and not what a person says? Wasn't that what we were saying we John Kerry was trying to act conservative?

Look at Bush's actions! He has done nothing but appoint conservative judges. In fact last night on Fox News they said that no president has EVER had more judicial nominations turned down by the Democrats than George Bush. He has set a new all time record in that category.

I am glad you conceded the thing about the pro-abortion judges as I do not think we should make a claim that isn't true.

[drbrumley]

Source (http://austin.about.com/library/weekly/aa102800c.htm)

In discussing Supreme Court nominations, abortion stands out as one of the most controversial issues a nominee will face. Bush's State appointees have not had to directly address the issue of abortion. They have all stated that questions on abortion were not part of the selection process when initially considered for appointment to the court.

However, some inferences can be drawn from the handling of recent abortion-related "Jane Doe" cases. As part of a decision over parental notification laws enacted in Texas, the all-GOP court split with most of the Bush appointees taking the more moderate position.

Justices Baker, Hankinson, and Gonzales generally voted in the majority on these "Jane Doe" cases — a position that dissenting justices saw as by-passing the intent of the law and in effect making abortion without Parental Consent easier to obtain. Justice Abbott consistently sided with the dissenting opinion that tended to limit the ability of minors to by-pass the Parental Notification Acts, accusing the Court of playing "a guessing game" as to the intent of the law.

The majority opinions took the position that the court is "not called upon to decide the constitutionality or wisdom of abortion. Arguments for or against abortion do not advance the issue of statutory construction presented by this case. Instead, our sole function in this case is to interpret and apply the statute enacted by our Legislature."

Could Roe vs. Wade be overturned by adding more judges to the Supreme Court like those Bush appointed in Texas? If they believe as Bush does that Roe vs. Wade is unconstitutional and can support their position through interpretation of the law rather than emotion, then yes, it is possible.

But it is still unclear whether Bush would move away from the moderate, non-activist choices he made in Texas and select judges more like U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. Both considered far right conservatives, Bush has said that they are the justices he most admires.

Me speaking now,

Knight, like I said earlier, I base my decisions upon the evidence. I see Bush give lip service to us and that's it. He has done nothing and will do nothing. Bush is a moderate republican. If the best he can do is give us a Scalia or Thomas type justice, then nothing will happen. Evidence suggests that. The two he most admires are states rights juctices. Thats a far cry from outlawing. God have mercy on this nation.

[drbrumley]

As for what our enemies are saying, who gives a rip. They hate Bush cause he's a freaking republican and he says things they don't like like "I'm a born Again Christian" The ultimate insult to them. Kerry didnt say those things so hes liked. Even if Bush came out and told what he is really up to like making abortion a states rights issue, he would STILL be hated by these nutcases.

[Knight]

:sigh:

[drbrumley]

You heard from me first Knight. Mark this thread and let's play a wait and see what Bush does game. I'll owe you a dinner at a fine establishment of your choice if he outlaws abortion.

[drbrumley]

I pray to God that I am wrong and your right Knight. But I really don't think that's the case.

[Knight]

Originally posted by drbrumley

I pray to God that I am wrong and your right Knight. But I really don't think that's the case. I don't know how but some how you are completely missing my point.

I never said Bush was going to outlaw abortion.

My point all along has been that its wrong to accuse Bush of appointing pro-abort judges.

It appears the evidence proves me right.

And... I love a good juicy steak when can I take you up on your offer? :D

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by Knight

I don't know how but some how you are completely missing my point.

I never said Bush was going to outlaw abortion.

My point all along has been that its wrong to accuse Bush of appointing pro-abort judges.

It appears the evidence proves me right.

And... I love a good juicy steak when can I take you up on your offer? :D

Ok Knight, so I must be misintrepting what the Texas Supreme Court did. Mostly Bush appointees. I must be misintrepting Gonzales arguing for and winning a Supreme Court case using the RICO act against pro-life activists. I must be misintrepting Bush when he says abortion SHOULD be legal in cases of rape and incest. :think:

[drbrumley]

I like a good steak myself.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by drbrumley

I must be misintrepting Gonzales arguing for and winning a Supreme Court case using the RICO act against pro-life activists.

Hang on, we've been through this before. Gonzales did the right thing by using RICO against the activists because they were breaking the law and he had sworn to uphold it. It wasn't his choice to illegalize abortion, yet you attack this man for doing what he was hired to do. He didn't make abortions legal.

C'mon Doc, you know better than this.

Oh, by the way, I think that the abortion issue should be on the ballots next election. Let's take control of our society and remove it from the hands of a few activist judges.

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Hang on, we've been through this before. Gonzales did the right thing by using RICO against the activists because they were breaking the law and he had sworn to uphold it. It wasn't his choice to illegalize abortion, yet you attack this man for doing what he was hired to do. He didn't make abortions legal.

C'mon Doc, you know better than this.

Oh, by the way, I think that the abortion issue should be on the ballots next election. Let's take control of our society and remove it from the hands of a few activist judges.

The National Organization for Women (NOW) sought to silence peaceful pro-life protests outside abortion clinics by filing a RICO action against abortion protestors. The Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) was intended to be used to combat the Mafia, but NOW nevertheless prevailed in the lower courts. NOW calls peaceful protests "campaigns of terror against abortion clinics." NOW even denies that peaceful pro-life protests are protected by the First Amendment right to free speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision finally in 2003 in favor of pro-lifers in Scheidler v. NOW, the infamous case involving the misapplication of racketeering laws to silence anti-abortion protests argued by Gonzales himself. Law professors and a host of activist groups have agreed that the verdict has implications not only for pro-life groups but for all who wish to exercise their right of free speech in peaceful protests.

"Acts of violence directed at abortion clinics, abortionists or women seeking abortions are wrong and already against the law and should be prosecuted without recourse to RICO. What NOW and other pro-abortion groups want to do is threaten pro-lifers with financial ruin in order to silence debate." This is what Alberto Gonzales fought for. You wanna stand by him. He knows the law and knew what a scam he was agruing. He won the first time, then fortunately it got reversed as it should have been.

[BillyBob]

Doc, I read the article you originally posted, the activists were anything but peaceful, they were interfering with a legal business. Maybe RICO is the wrong way to prosecute, I dunno, I'm not a lawyer, but the militant activists had to be stopped.

[drbrumley]

Anything but peaceful? What the hell do you think protests are you Redneck:p . It is supposed to stop something, you think? Noone was hurt. Noone got manhandled. They gathered at the abortion clinic and tryed to stop them thru peaceful means. It didn't work and the murderers called the cops and had them arrested. Then the rest is history.

[drbrumley]

I will note for further reference Bush's stand with the following from BillyBob:

legal business

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Anything but peaceful? What the hell do you think protests are you Redneck:p .

Hey, you're the one with the deep southern accent! I'm just a northern city boy who was born again southern.

It is supposed to stop something, you think? Noone was hurt. Noone got manhandled. They gathered at the abortion clinic and tryed to stop them thru peaceful means.

Doc, they did more than protest, they interfered with legal commerce. Admit it, if the circumstances were the same but it was you being targeted and your own business was being severely hampered, don't you think you'd expect the law enforcers to quickly put an end to these illegal activities?? Interfering with comerce is not the same as a peaceful protest.

It didn't work and the murderers called the cops and had them arrested. Then the rest is history.

Doc, I am against abortion as much as you are, but that is not what this incident is primarily about and you know it.

[Callin' me a Redneck! :chuckle:]

[drbrumley]

My business wouldnt be butchering children. Big difference.

[drbrumley]

Murder is murder no matter how you slice it. Legal or not!!!!

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by drbrumley

It [a protest] is supposed to stop something, you think?

No, it is not supposed to stop something. It is supposed to allow people's 'voices' to be heard. It is supposed to enlighten other people who may not be aware about a particular situation. It is a show of solidarity against something but it is not supposed to prevent something from happening. That is when it becomes illegal and the law must prevail.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Murder is murder no matter how you slice it. Legal or not!!!!


For now, abortion IS legal and people who prevent a legal organization from conducting it's legal business will be prosecuted. Don't like it? Get abortion to be made illegal.


[I liked your pun 'no matter how you slice it', very appropriate]


Oh, and what happens when abortion is finally made illegal and you hear about some doctor who is committing 'back room' abortions? Will you not expect that he be upheld to the law and penalized according to it?

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by drbrumley

My business wouldnt be butchering children. Big difference.

Big difference? Not according to the law. Right now, child butchering is as legal as your business is and the government has no choice but to protect both of your businesses equally. I wouldn't have it any other way.

[And don't be twisting my words like you did last time we had this discussion]

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by BillyBob Oh, by the way, I think that the abortion issue should be on the ballots next election. Let's take control of our society and remove it from the hands of a few activist judges. It was on the ballot in the last general election. Kerry and the Secular Humanist Democrat Party were Pro-Abortion. They got 50,000,000 votes. Bush and the Republicans were anti-Abortion they got about 53,000,000 votes.

You want to kill abortion? Don't vote Democrat.

The only way to reign in the activist Federal Courts is for Congress to use Article III Section 2 of the constitution to curb the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Big difference? Not according to the law. Right now, child butchering is as legal as your business is and the government has no choice but to protect both of your businesses equally. I wouldn't have it any other way. This has an eerie resemblance to the Nazi shrug..."I was only following orders." They were legal orders, weren't they ? :think:

[Knight]

Originally posted by Art Deco

It was on the ballot in the last general election. Kerry and the Secular Humanist Democrat Party were Pro-Abortion. They got 50,000,000 votes. Bush and the Republicans were anti-Abortion they got about 53,000,000 votes.

You want to kill abortion? Don't vote Democrat.

The only way to reign in the activist Federal Courts is for Congress to use Article III Section 2 of the constitution to curb the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But the argument here is that Bush is actually pro-choice.

And that Bush appoints pro-choice judges.

So far... I can find NO evidence to support this claim. The only evidence I can find is that Bush has been appointing pro-life judges.

[avatar382]

In my opinion, Bush is not really pro-choice, at least not openly - but he is not truly pro-life either. I think he's a moderate on the issue, (supports abortion in some cases, and not in others) and is playing politics with you all. (the far right)

Spouts juuuuust enough rhetoric to energize the right, but doesn't do enough to make much of an impact on the issue and really alarm the left. Not that I blame him, honestly, I think it's very saavy of him to play the game.

What surprises me is how you people - the supposedly uncomprimising far right - don't see through it and realizing that when it comes down to it, Bush really hasn't taken a clear stand on the issue one way or another.

Michael Petrouka - he struck me as truly pro-life. His pro-life stance was very clear and at the very top of his issues list.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Art Deco

It was on the ballot in the last general election. Kerry and the Secular Humanist Democrat Party were Pro-Abortion. They got 50,000,000 votes. Bush and the Republicans were anti-Abortion they got about 53,000,000 votes.

You want to kill abortion? Don't vote Democrat.


Most people here at TOL didn't vote democrat but abortion is still legal. I think it's going to take more than that.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Judicial Chainsaw Massacre - Fortunato:
"Not surprisingly, the George W. Bush judges were rivaled only by those of Ronald Reagan, siding 65 percent of the time with the government against claims by individuals seeking to vindicate or expand constitutional rights. This was as true for Bush’s female and minority appointees as it was for his white ones."

FrankiE:
Why should I believe (or assume), as Mr. Fortunato does, that "individuals seeking to vindicate ..." are always legally correct?

Why should I believe (or assume) that the government position is always wrong in these cases?

Why should I believe (or assume) that "female and minority ..." have anything to do with the subject.

Why do I think Mr. Fortunato is just another commie political screeder?
Mr. fortunato's first name wouldn't happen to be Leon, would it?:chuckle:

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Aimiel

Why don't we bring this to an end, by praying, and seeking for God to bring us Presidential candidates which will do His Will once they are elected?
Just as long as you understand that God migh say, "No."

[Granite]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Most people here at TOL didn't vote democrat but abortion is still legal. I think it's going to take more than that.

It look pro-choicers a long time to get their way and will take just as long if not longer to reverse Roe v. Wade and its implications.

[aikido7]

I think most of us right wingers agree that we wish Bush was more focused on issues of biblical morality especially in regard to abortion and homosexuality issues.

Moses channelled God's commandments to his people, one of which decreed no one should kill. Biblical morality, however, is not so clear-cut, since God is characterized as occasionally destroying cities full of men, women and children. Of course, they were our enemies and must have deserved it. But then later Jesus wants us to love our enemies and even pray for them.

Biblical morality has been squeezed and twisted in such a way that we will not feed or clothe the hungry or give to anyone who begs of us if they had an abortion or are sexually attracted to their own gender.

That ain't morality. That's fear and judgement. Seventy times seven fear and judgement, at that.

However we also must be honest and look at some of the things he has done that are good things (besides freeing Afghanistan and Iraq).

Freedom cannot be imposed. It must be nurtured and grown. Reality on the ground (much different than "freedom is on the march" and "a free Iraq") does not match with any good most people can see.

Pro-aborts generally hate George Bush which is a somewhat of a good sign.

Hate should never be "a good sign." Unless, of course, you are a Constantinian Christian. But I certainly understand why you feel that way. I just feel it is petty and anti-Christian (in a "Jesus" sense).

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Knight

But the argument here is that Bush is actually pro-choice.

And that Bush appoints pro-choice judges.

So far... I can find NO evidence to support this claim. The only evidence I can find is that Bush has been appointing pro-life judges.


I don't think you will find any justices that President Bush nominated or will nominate to the Federal Court that are clearly Pro-Abortion.

Could the President restrict abortion to the rare instance when the life of the mother is at stake by executive order? Didn't Abe Lincoln free the slaves by executive order?

[Frank Ernest]

Art Deco:
Didn't Abe Lincoln free the slaves by executive order?

FrankiE:
Lincoln's executive order freed only those slaves who were in areas of rebellion. Slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on 6 December 1865.

[Granite]

Originally posted by Art Deco

I don't think you will find any justices that President Bush nominated or will nominate to the Federal Court that are clearly Pro-Abortion.

Could the President restrict abortion to the rare instance when the life of the mother is at stake by executive order? Didn't Abe Lincoln free the slaves by executive order?

I'm not sure if the Emancipation Proclamation is considered an executive order--if so it was ineffectual in its original form.

[Knight]

From DF Joseph MD....Dear Friends,

The "Party of Death," just will not let President Bush pick his own judges. As the new Senate minority leader Harry Reid said, "I was extremely disappointed to learn today that the president intends to begin the new Congress by resubmitting extremist judicial nominees,''

By extremists, Democrats mean anyone who honors the sanctity of human life. If you do not agree with them, that a woman should have the right to have her unborn child killed -- you are an extremists.

Am I missing something here? It used to be that anyone who supported the killing of these little children was an extremists.

Just because the Democratic party has lost its moral values does not mean they are right. I still haven't figured out how they get around God's Commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

Oops, sorry about that. According to a recent Gallup poll. the bulk of the Democratic party is made up of people who attend Church infrequently, or are agnostics, or atheists, or have ties to the Communist party, or are members of the Hollywood Filth Industry.

Prior to the last election, the strippers and pornographers even came out against president Bush as did the Homosexual community.

As anyone can plainly see, the Democratic Party is made up of - - - - - - . You can fill in the blanks.

And I am, and people like me, are now considered the extremists by the "Party of Death." WOW! How times have changed.

Sure the Democrats will filibuster Bush's pro-life nominees. They do not want them to go to the Senate floor for a full vote, because they know they will be confirmed. But now that the Republicans gained more seats in the Senate in the last election and have a 55 to 45 majority, they just might be able to get 5 Democrats to join them to break the filibuster. But, don't hold your breath -- satan has this party by the throat.

The problem is -- are there 5 Democratic senators who honor the sanctity of human life? Or, is that asking for too much?

Frank Joseph MD
------------------------------------

President Bush Will Renominate 20 Pro-Life Judges, Democrat Fight Looms

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
December 23, 2004

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- President Bush will renominate twenty pro-life judges for key federal court positions a White House spokesman announced Thursday. The decision sets the stage for a fierce debate with Senate Democrats over abortion.

Senate Democrats, with the exception of pro-life Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, frequently used filibusters to block judges they opposed based on their abortion views, including ten nominees to federal appeals courts.

With several election victories producing a Republican controlled Senate by a 55-45 margin, Bush is ready to relaunch those battles with the hopes that he can find 60 votes to stop filibusters.

"The Senate has a constitutional obligation to vote up or down on a president's judicial nominees,'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said in a written statement.

"The president nominated highly qualified individuals to the federal courts during his first term, but the Senate failed to vote on many nominations,'' McClellan added.

Incoming Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who has a mixed record on abortion, said he was disturbed to hear of the renominations.

"I was extremely disappointed to learn today that the president intends to begin the new Congress by resubmitting extremist judicial nominees,'' Reid said in a statement.

Though he has a larger majority, a mostly unified Democratic Party could still block the nominees. Knowing that, Senate Republican leaders are considering several ideas to push through the judicial picks on a majority basis -- including rewriting Senate rules to disallow filibusters on judicial confirmation votes.

The list of judicial nominees sent back to the Senate for reconsideration includes pro-life Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, who was given a recess appointment to sit on the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Bush also is re-nominating pro-life Texas Supreme Court judge Priscilla Owen for the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit and Richard Allen Griffin, David W. McKeague and Henry Saad for the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit.

He has selected pro-life California Supreme Court judge Janice Rogers Brown for the D.C. Circuit and William G. Myers III for the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit.

Other nominees never made it to the Senate floor for consideration.

Related web sites:
White House statement on judicial nominees -
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/12/20041223-1.html

[Zakath]

Knight,

Surely you're not suggesting that the Senate rubber-stamp every presidential appointment to avoid being lambasted in the neo-con press?

[BillyBob]

The Republicans gained seats in both the House and the Senate as a result of the last Election. President Bush won solidly and received the most votes of any President in history.

The people have elected, by a majority, Representatives, Senators and a President who are basically Conservative. Bush has a mandate given to him by the people of the United States with the expectation that he will fulfill his promises and appoint Conservative Judges.

Yes, the Senate should absolutely 'rubber stamp' every one of Bush's appointees.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Zakath

Knight,

Surely you're not suggesting that the Senate rubber-stamp every presidential appointment to avoid being lambasted in the neo-con press? All I am doing is pointing out that Bush does NOT appoint pro-abortion judges. At least none that I can find so far.

[drbrumley]

Well, when Roe v Wade is not overturned by these "pro-life judges". What will we say then?

[Knight]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Well, when Roe v Wade is not overturned by these "pro-life judges". What will we say then? How can Circuit Court judges reverse Roe vs. Wade?

Furthermore.... once they are appointed Bush has little control over what they do, but I still say... give them a chance!

Regardless.... my argument is that he doesn't appoint pro-abortion judges.

I would think at this stage you could at least concede that point.

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by Knight

How can Circuit Court judges reverse Roe vs. Wade?

Furthermore.... once they are appointed Bush has little control over what they do, but I still say... give them a chance!

Regardless.... my argument is that he doesn't appoint pro-abortion judges.

I would think at this stage you could at least concede that point.

I think I already said and conceded that I couldn't, at least with evidence you accept. Fair enough?

I guess time will tell if they are pro aborts or not.

[drbrumley]

Fear of the Truth (http://www.constitutionpartyva.com/fears.php)

Conservatives are loathe to believe the obvious – their party has deserted them. They are like an abused wife who cannot leave her husband because he might commit suicide and it would be "her fault." That if only he had the right conditions he would improve his behavior.

Conservatives have been conditioned to believe the lie that if only the GOP controlled both Congress and the White House, things would be so much different, that suddenly they would begin to hold legislation to a constitutional standard and hold each other accountable to their platform (now, that hope has been proven vain). To believe that the GOP truly has conservative values and not just a conservative (but ignored) platform, one must never look at the record of their actions.

This statement does not refer to the times when the GOP has passively stood by as the liberal agenda was enacted. It sees behind those few small victories that are given to conservatives as bones to keep them complacent. This statement is about active collaboration with liberals. This fear of the truth permeates even those who make a profession of research. The National Right to Life supported Senator Bob Dole, yet he never once voted against a pro-abortion Supreme Court nominee. Twenty-eight Republicans who the National Right to Life Committee says voted 100% pro-life in 1999 supported Mary McLaughlin to the U.S. District Court. She received a 1998 award from the ACLU for her pro-abortion activism.

Following are just a few examples which are so indicative of the real values of the GOP that to consider the GOP a morally acceptable option for governing requires one to refuse to believe the truth.

Conservatives are supposed to be mollified by the GOP's bringing the ban on Partial Birth Abortions to vote repeatedly. What we are conveniently NOT reminded of is that each time the PBA ban has failed to override the Clinton vetoes, the margin has been less than the number of Republicans voting with the President. In other words, had the Republicans made their members toe the line on this most extreme example of barbarism, it would have passed.

Not only would the GOP not demand adherence to the party platform on this issue, but the GOP refused to stop sending campaign donations to candidates who supported PBA (the vote wasn’t even close). Henry Hyde's support of G. W. Bush is supposed to allay fear that Bush may be no more pro-life than his father, but Hyde's reputation as a solid pro-lifer was used to keep money flowing to pro-abort GOPers.

Does anyone think G. W. Bush is more conservative than Reagan (who despite his pro-life rhetoric nominated two pro-abort judges to the Supreme Court)? Bush does not believe that unborn babies have a right to life. He says he opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. In other words, who lives and who dies is a political decision. There is not a right to life in the mind or heart of Bush, who opposed fellow Texan Tim Lambert's resolution to defund PBA candidates.

Then there is the support by the GOP of a federal budget that has more than tripled since Reagan took office. There is the recruitment and support of liberal GOP candidates using the contributions of Christians – accompanied with punishment for conservative GOP members who refuse to support establishment choices in primaries. Sellout after sellout on education (GOP Congress appropriated MORE money than Clinton wanted), gays in the military, unconstitutional use of our military as a global police force, tax increases, federal agencies running amuck, giving money to the UN, failure to defund or even reduce funding for Planned Parenthood and the National Endowment for the Arts, permanent MFN for China, and on and on.

[Knight]

Originally posted by drbrumley

I think I already said and conceded that I couldn't, at least with evidence you accept. Fair enough?

I guess time will tell if they are pro aborts or not. Ok... but if some of them went "soft" later in their service would it be fair to blame Bush?

[Frank Ernest]

We, the People. The evil of abortion triumphed because good men did nothing. It really doesn't matter who the President is. When conservative Christians decided to sit out elections, they handed the field to the lie-berals.

When conservative Christians give luke-warm or no support to those amenable in office, evil wins. When Christians pay lip service to their heritage and try to accommodate lie-beral "tolerance", we all lose.

Unfortunately we have also allowed lie-berals to pretty much dictate who sits in what court. It will take years to clean up that situation and GWB can't do it in just four. With our help and support, he (we) can make a dent in it though.

[drbrumley]

When we neglect to learn from history, we are bound to repeat it. Let us learn from the history of Republican judicial appointments. Republicans Presidents have a long-history of appointing liberal justices. Six of the nine Supreme Court justices that gave us abortion-on-demand with the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision were appointed by Republicans. The vote was seven to two in favor of Roe, and one of the dissenting votes was cast by a Democratic-appointee![1] Seven of the nine justices presently on the Supreme Court, that has reinforced Roe v. Wade, were appointed by Republicans.

[1] “Republican-Appointed Justices: Do They Make a Difference?” Pamphlet #522 of the American Wisdom Series, http://www.americanwisdomseries.com/522.html

It was the Republicans who gave us judicial appointments that resulted in abortion-on-demand throughout all months of pregnancy for any reason. Not the Democrats. Republicans appointed the vast majority of the Court that gave us the following judicial decisions as well:

> banned school prayer

> declared sodomy a constitutional “right”

> declared Nebraska couldn’t outlaw partial birth abortion

> declared Congress couldn’t legislate to protect children from pornography on cable television

> declared that a Michigan law school could use race as a factor in admission

> declared that incumbant politicians could restrict free speech of their subjects before election.



Conservatives are justifiably concerned about activist judges forcing “gay marriage” upon the public, but their commonly proposed remedy is more of what ails them. It was Republican presidents who appointed four of the six U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted to strike down Texas's law banning sodomites from having sex. This case was the precedent that convinced the Massachusetts Supreme Court to declare “gay marriage” a constitutional right. Six of the seven justices on the Massachusetts Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors.[2]


[2]“The Justices”, Lawyers Weekly USA, http://www.lawyersweeklyusa.com/goodridge2.cfm

With “conservative” appointments like these, who needs liberal appointments?

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by drbrumley

When we neglect to learn from history, we are bound to repeat it. Let us learn from the history of Republican judicial appointments. Republicans Presidents have a long-history of appointing liberal justices. Six of the nine Supreme Court justices that gave us abortion-on-demand with the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision were appointed by Republicans. The vote was seven to two in favor of Roe, and one of the dissenting votes was cast by a Democratic-appointee![1] Seven of the nine justices presently on the Supreme Court, that has reinforced Roe v. Wade, were appointed by Republicans.

[1] “Republican-Appointed Justices: Do They Make a Difference?” Pamphlet #522 of the American Wisdom Series, http://www.americanwisdomseries.com/522.html

It was the Republicans who gave us judicial appointments that resulted in abortion-on-demand throughout all months of pregnancy for any reason. Not the Democrats. Republicans appointed the vast majority of the Court that gave us the following judicial decisions as well:

> banned school prayer

> declared sodomy a constitutional “right”

> declared Nebraska couldn’t outlaw partial birth abortion

> declared Congress couldn’t legislate to protect children from pornography on cable television

> declared that a Michigan law school could use race as a factor in admission

> declared that incumbent politicians could restrict free speech of their subjects before election.



Conservatives are justifiably concerned about activist judges forcing “gay marriage” upon the public, but their commonly proposed remedy is more of what ails them. It was Republican presidents who appointed four of the six U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted to strike down Texas's law banning sodomites from having sex. This case was the precedent that convinced the Massachusetts Supreme Court to declare “gay marriage” a constitutional right. Six of the seven justices on the Massachusetts Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors.[2]


[2]“The Justices”, Lawyers Weekly USA, http://www.lawyersweeklyusa.com/goodridge2.cfm

With “conservative” appointments like these, who needs liberal appointments?

The current praise used by Bush is that he will not appoint a judicial activist. Most think that means conservative but stop and think about that a minute. A non judicial activist means that the present interpretations of the constitution will not be overturned but rulings will be in favor of current interpretations meaning that Roe V Wade will not be overturned or none of the other decisions that violate the constitution. We may be stuck with current law for quite some time even with new Bush appointees to the Supreme Court.:doh:

[elected4ever]

Conservative Christians have been (neo) coned again by the Republican Party. Party.:noway: :juggle: :dizzy: :liberals: :hammer: :bang:

[Knight]

Abortion Advocates Criticize President Bush on Judges, FDA Director

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Abortion advocates are upset with President Bush for sending a list of pro-life judges to the Senate for confirmation and for appointing a new director to the Food and Drug Administration who understands that the RU 486 abortion drug was responsible for the deaths of three women.

On Monday, President Bush nominated about twenty pro-life judges he wants on federal appeals and district courts. Some of the names include those who were the victims of filibusters by abortion advocates in the Senate.

That's not going over well with the folks at Planned Parenthood. "President Bush calls himself a 'uniter,' but by renominating these judges he shows his extremist ideological bent," said PPFA Interim President Karen Pearl. "The president knows that these ultraconservative nominees are unacceptable. He is trying to create a controversy that will distract the American people and prevent the Senate from accomplishing real work on pressing issues."

Meanwhile, President Bush nominated Lester Crawford, the acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, as the new head of the agency. Bush's selection received condemnation from NARAL, a leading abortion advocacy group.
"By rewarding Crawford for buckling under political pressure, President Bush is showing his true colors once again -- in this administration, keeping far-right activists happy is the most important thing," said Nancy Keenan, president of the organization.

[BillyBob]

"President Bush calls himself a 'uniter,' but by renominating these judges he shows his extremist ideological bent,"

Pro-life is an extremist viewpoint?


said PPFA Interim President Karen Pearl. "The president knows that these ultraconservative nominees are unacceptable.

Ultraconservative? Anyone who isn't a baby-killing commie is considered Ultraconservative by these people. If she is against ultra political viwepoints, she might wanna complain about the DNC crowning an UltraLiberal as it's new chairman.

[drRansom]

Anyone seen this?

Bush Signs Title X Funding Increase for 2005
Planned Parenthood's Abortion Funding Increased

President George W. Bush and the Republican-majority Congress
Increased Title X to record $288.3 million in FY 2005 on 12/8/04


Title X is one of two major federal government funding sources for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the nation's largest chain of abortion centers (murdering over 244,000 unborn human beings per year by surgical abortion alone).


Title X appropriation for FY 2005 (Oct. 2004 to Sept. 2005) was signed into law as part of H.R. 4818 (see bill at http://thomas.loc.gov), the mammoth appropriations bill which contained the huge outlays for the (unconstitutional) Department of Health and Human Services.


Republican-majority U.S. House approved H.R. 4818 by a vote of 344 to 51, on November 20, 2004 (Roll Call Number: 542). [Republicans 183 Yea, 27 Nay; Democrats 160 Yea, 24 Nay; 1 Independent Yea]


Republican-majority U.S. Senate approved H.R. 4818 by a vote of 65 to 30, on November 20, 2004 (Record Vote Number: 215) [Republicans 42 Yea, 6 Nay; Democrats 23 Yea, 23 Nay; 1 Independent Nay]


Republican President signed H.R. 4818 into law, authorizing the highest ever spending level for Title X in the history of the program, on December 8, 2004. It became Public Law No. 108-447.

This FY 2005 Bush administration Title X funding level of $288 million (an estimated $50-$60 million of which will be paid to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, for population control), exceeds by over $30 million, the highest Title X level during the Clinton administration, in FY 2001, of $254 million!

The Title X program includes funding for contraceptive birth control; birth control that causes chemical abortions; and birth control for unmarried adolescents, even if their parents object to the federal government giving their children hormonal drugs and devices with which to fornicate.

The Title X program is also one of the principal federal government funding mechanisms for Planned Parenthood Federation of America (founded by Margaret Sanger), the nation's largest chain of child-murder-by-abortion centers.


[source] (http://www.covenantnews.com/lefemine050208.htm)

Just another way that Dumbya has been back-door funding abortion.

[billwald]

If Bush didn't follow instructions from his owners he would killed as Kennedy was.

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by drRansom

Anyone seen this?



[source] (http://www.covenantnews.com/lefemine050208.htm)

Just another way that Dumbya has been back-door funding abortion. Being pro-abortion, he cleverly signed the Bill outlawing partial birth abortions. The bill anti-abortionist Bill Clinton vetoed twice, clever fellow that he was... :doh:

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Being pro-abortion, he cleverly signed the Bill outlawing partial birth abortions. The bill anti-abortionist Bill Clinton vetoed twice, clever fellow that he was... :doh:

Why don't you answer the charge Art? Would you fund Planned Parenthood? If you would, then you are a hypocrite.

Bush says he is against abortion but it is ok to fund the biggest group who does. Way to go Bush, more murders until you get the kahoona'a to do something about it.

Hey Knight, how much MORE evidence do you need?

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Why don't you answer the charge Art? Would you fund Planned Parenthood? If you would, then you are a hypocrite. Personally, if I were president I would sign an executive order outlawing abortion. Secondly, I would call the speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader into my office with the president's counsel and have them write a bill using Article III section 2 to forbid all Federal Courts the jurisdiction to hear any case on abortion. This would throw the issue into State courts where abortion can be snuffed out state by state.

Posted by docbrumley: Bush says he is against abortion but it is ok to fund the biggest group who does. Way to go Bush, more murders until you get the kahoona'a to do something about it.

Hey Knight, how much MORE evidence do you need? Doc are you pro-choice on abortion? Just for the record... :think:

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Personally, if I were president I would sign an executive order outlawing abortion. Secondly, I would call the speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader into my office with the president's counsel and have them write a bill using Article III section 2 to forbid all Federal Courts the jurisdiction to hear any case on abortion. This would throw the issue into State courts where abortion can be snuffed out state by state.

Posted by docbrumley: Doc are you pro-choice on abortion? Just for the record... :think:

Why not Executive Orders? They are law you know.

As for being pro-choice, there isn't a snow-balls chance in hell that I can ever be considered pro-choice. The person made the choice by shacking up is my opinion. Does that clear it up some?

[drRansom]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Being pro-abortion, he cleverly signed the Bill outlawing partial birth abortions. The bill anti-abortionist Bill Clinton vetoed twice, clever fellow that he was...

:nono:

What do you think of the FACT, Art, that Bush is a liar and hypocrite by funding abortion through the back-door? Does this not make Bush a hypocrite? Please respond to the article.

[drRansom]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Personally, if I were president I would sign an executive order outlawing abortion. Secondly, I would call the speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader into my office with the president's counsel and have them write a bill using Article III section 2 to forbid all Federal Courts the jurisdiction to hear any case on abortion. This would throw the issue into State courts where abortion can be snuffed out state by state.


Well good for you. If I were President I would immediately ban abortion, as well. But we'll never be President. The question is why is Bush "privately" funding abortion?

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by drRansom

:nono:

What do you think of the FACT, Art, that Bush is a liar and hypocrite by funding abortion through the back-door? Does this not make Bush a hypocrite? Please respond to the article. Doc, what about Knight's Post #64? If the pro-abort side is wringing their hands over Bush's Federal Court nominees, what does that say about Bush's commitment to ending abortion through the courts? Without all the facts, your question sounds like Bush is equivocating on abortion. Could he do more? Yes. Is he pro-aborton ala John Kerry? I don't think so.

[drRansom]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Doc, what about Knight's Post #64? If the pro-abort side is wringing their hands over Bush's Federal Court nominees, what does that say about Bush's commitment to ending abortion through the courts? Without all the facts, your question sounds like Bush is equivocating on abortion. Could he do more? Yes. Is he pro-aborton ala John Kerry? I don't think so.

You're still missing the point. Yes, Bush has cut abortion in some areas. But what you are overlooking is that after publicly cutting some abortion funding he then back-door funds it through other routes, which results in abortion not being cut at all but increased. Do you see this? How is this hard to understand?

[Knight]

More from the enemy.....Bush Says 'Happy Valentine's Day' with a Dozen Dreadful Judicial Re-Nominees

Instead of a dozen roses, George W. Bush sent a handful of weeds to the Senate on Feb. 14 by re-nominating a dozen judges for approval. The judges include Priscilla Owen, who supports "stricter interpretation" of the laws that require girls younger than 18 to inform their parents before obtaining an abortion, and William H. Pryor, who has said that the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law."

Source: National Organization for Women, "Bush Says 'Happy Valentine's Day' with a Dozen Dreadful Judicial Re-Nominees," Feb. 15, 2005

[Knight]

One of Bush's recent nominees....

James Leon Holmes

Nominated to be a U.S. District Court judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. On July 6, 2004, the Senate confirmed Holmes' nomination with a 51-46 vote.

* Served as president of Arkansas Right to Life (1986-1987) and advocated for a constitutional amendment to the Arkansas constitution that would have prohibited abortion completely.

* In a letter to the editor Holmes stated, "The abortion issue is the simplest issue this country has faced since slavery was made unconstitutional and it deserves the same response."*

* Holmes equated Americans who support abortion rights with Nazis. What they advocate, he wrote in 1982, is "abandoning what little morality our society still recognizes. This was attempted by one highly sophisticated, historically Christian nation in our century—Nazi Germany."*

* Holmes dismissed the impact of a total abortion ban on impregnated rape victims as a trifle: "concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with the same frequency as snowfall in Miami."

* Holmes wrote that the proper role of women in marriage should be a biblical one, in which a "wife is to subordinate herself to her husband" and "place herself under the authority of the man."*

* In 1997, he lamented that the feminist movement "brought with it artificial contraception and abortion on demand, with recognition of homosexual liaisons soon to follow."**

* In a 1990 article, Mr. Holmes dismissed concerns about racial disparities in the imposition of the death penalty, by suggesting that "a disproportionate number of death row inmates are poor and minorities, but so are the victims". He also stated that "it seems unfair" for convicted murderers to do such things as writing their families from behind bars even though their victims cannot.***

[ source (http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/holmes.html) ]

[BillyBob]

Nice! :up:

[aikido7]

Some of you are finally coming around.

Bush is a hypocrite.

This was clinched for me when he was quoted as saying that the death penalty for born-again Karla Faye Tucker was "weighing heavily" on him. That was before he was quoted by Tucker Carlson in an interview published in Talk Magazine.

Not only did Tucker quote Bush throwing the ultimate four-letter word around like it was corporate welfare, he also described how our president made a pinched face and then cruelly mocked Karla Faye Tucker's plea to him to save her life.

Whatever has hidden will be revealed.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by aikido7

Some of you are finally coming around.

Bush is a hypocrite.

This was clinched for me when he was quoted as saying that the death penalty for born-again Karla Faye Tucker was "weighing heavily" on him. That was before he was quoted by Tucker Carlson in an interview published in Talk Magazine.

Not only did Tucker quote Bush throwing the ultimate four-letter word around like it was corporate welfare, he also described how our president made a pinched face and then cruelly mocked Karla Faye Tucker's plea to him to save her life.

Whatever has hidden will be revealed. Come now, It was clinched for you when you found out he was a wealthy capitalist.

[aikido7]

Come now, It was clinched for you when you found out he was a wealthy capitalist.

Now why in the heck can't I just accept him as a man of the people, God's minister and friend of the American working people?

He's a brazen hypocrite and a Christian nut.












...It was clinched when he acted hypocritically.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by aikido7

Now why in the heck can't I just accept him as a man of the people, God's minister and friend of the American working people?

He's a brazen hypocrite and a Christian nut.


...It was clinched when he acted hypocritically. Liar!

[Granite]

Oh, heavens. Who can argue with a response like that...

[aikido7]

Liar!


Hypocrite When your actions belie your words and your public persona.

Christian nut When your human arrogance bleeds into your spiritual realm and convinces you that God is on your side and that the fact of your actions belying your words is of no moral consequence.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by granite1010

Oh, heavens. Who can argue with a response like that... I am saying he is lying when he says that he just made up his mind that Bush was a bad guy based on his response to Karla Faye Tucker. He knows he's liying and I suspect you know he's liying!

[drbrumley]

I'm sure many of you have seen this, but at the bottom of this message is a press release containing some real, hard evidence that not only has our Republican, "pro-life" president betrayed his pro-life constituency ( and the unborn babies) by increasing the tax money used to fund America's largest abortion provider -- Planned Parenthood --

1) Pres. Bush, in the third debate last fall, stated that abortions had not and would not be paid for with taxpayer money. The FACT is that indirect funding of child-killing ( taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood and others ) was increased every year during Bush's first term . In 2001 more was given than in any budget during pro-abort Bill Clinton's eight years. The country's largest abortion provider was given over A BILLION DOLLARS during the first four years of solid "pro-life", conservative Republican rule. Funding was increased again this year -- to nearly $ 300 million

This means : a) Pres. Bush lied; or b) he has, for five consecutive years, signed over millions and billions of dollars confiscated from his pro-life constituency to a massive anti-Christ, child killing organisation without knowing what was in the budget. There are no other options.

2) The Republican controlled Congress & Senate, once again voted overwhelmingly for this bill. Before you try to blame Democrats a large majority of Republican members of both houses voted for this for this increase -- see exact numbers below. ( in fact, more Democrats voted against expanding the Federal Budget -- for whatever reason -- than Republicans).

3) Hypocrisy from Pro-Life "Leadership" : When the Clinton Administration gave money to Planned Parenthood the leadership of the Religious Right howled. Had Kerry won and the Democrats gained control of Congress and increased Federal Funding for abortion, you can bet the airwaves, mail outs, and e-mail list of these folks would have been white hot with fundraising efforts ( err, I mean "Alerts"). When Bush and the GOP do it we get silence -- save for the cheerleading we get when the "culture of life" is mentioned in a speech. Of course, if blaspheming Christ by repeatedly saying Christians and Muslims worship "the same god"; claiming American was built on "the Koran"; and having the most pro-Sodomite Administration in history does not make these folks stop gushing, I don't know why I would expect yet another funding increase for baby-killing to do so . . . at least we have a "place at the table".

THESE PIED PIPERS ARE NOT GOING TO LEAD US ANYWHERE EXCEPT ON THE ROAD TO RUIN !!! IF you are truly pro-life, and want to see not only Federal and State funding of child-murder ended, but child-murder itself, join and support a party who aims to stop murder, not fund and regulate it -- the Constitution Party.

If you want to see the size and scope of the government reduced, while actually working to see the state carry out its legitimate functions. Support a party whose very foundation and purpose is this -- the Constitution Party.

Stop supporting those who have shown time and again that they do not take their solemn duty to God, the desires ( or money) of their constituents, or the lives of the helpless and innocent any more seriously than they do their oath of office. Stop groveling at their feet and begging them to do their duty and obey their oath. REPLACE THEM. Run for office or support someone who will.

Stop giving time, money, effort, or attention to those who merely seek a large mailing list/ radio audience and lots of YOUR FAMILY'S HARD EARNED MONEY so that they can live high ( without having to work for a living) and rub elbows with the power-hungry statist politicians and god-hating media elite in Sodom on the Potomac. Use your time, talent, and treasure for the good of your family and neighbors; for the advancement of the Kingdom of Christ through the spread of the whole Gospel through your local church; and to organise/ work with like-minded people in your community, state and region to take your government/ country back at the grass-roots level. "Victory cannot be achieved unless we first seek it" -- Howard Phillips

To change your government, change your vote.

Constitution Party of Mississippi --

[drbrumley]

February 08, 2005

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:4:./temp/~c108P1Tz79:e7976:

Bush Signs Title X Funding Increase for 2005 Planned Parenthood's Abortion Funding Increased

President George W. Bush and the Republican-majority Congress Increased Title X to record $288.3 million in FY 2005 on 12/8/04

Title X is one of two major federal government funding sources for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the nation's largest chain of abortion centers (murdering over 244,000 unborn human beings per year by surgical abortion alone).

Title X appropriation for FY 2005 (Oct. 2004 to Sept. 2005) was signed into law as part of H.R. 4818 (see bill at http://thomas.loc.gov), the mammoth appropriations bill which contained the huge outlays for the (unconstitutional) Department of Health and Human Services.

Republican-majority U.S. House approved H.R. 4818 by a vote of 344 to 51, on November 20, 2004 (Roll Call Number: 542). [Republicans 183 Yea, 27 Nay; Democrats 160 Yea, 24 Nay; 1 Independent Yea]

Republican-majority U.S. Senate approved H.R. 4818 by a vote of 65 to 30, on November 20, 2004 (Record Vote Number: 215) [Republicans 42 Yea, 6 Nay; Democrats 23 Yea, 23 Nay; 1 Independent Nay]

Republican President signed H.R. 4818 into law, authorizing the highest ever spending level for Title X in the history of the program, on December 8, 2004. It became Public Law No. 108-447.

This FY 2005 Bush administration Title X funding level of $288 million (an estimated $50-$60 million of which will be paid to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, for population control), exceeds by over $30 million, the highest Title X level during the Clinton administration, in FY 2001, of $254 million!

Note:

The Title X program includes funding for contraceptive birth control; birth control that causes chemical abortions; and birth control for unmarried adolescents, even if their parents object to the federal government giving their children hormonal drugs and devices with which to fornicate.

The Title X program is also one of the principal federal government funding mechanisms for Planned Parenthood Federation of America (founded by Margaret Sanger), the nation's largest chain of child-murder-by-abortion centers.

Information on Title X: http://opa.osophs.dhhs.gov/titlex/ofp.html

Title X funding history since inception in 1971: From the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Population Affairs website: http://opa.osophs.dhhs.gov/titlex/ofp-funding-history.html Pertinent text below, documenting appropriation of $288,283,000 for Title X is shown below, from:

H.R.4818 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate) - Federal HHS Appropriations Bill (FY 2005)

H.R.4818

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration

HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES

For carrying out titles II, III, IV, VII, VIII, X, XII, XIX, and XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, section 427(a) of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, title V and sections 1128E, 711, and 1820 of the Social Security Act, the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, as amended, the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988, as amended, the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of 2000, section 712 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, and the Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act, as amended, $6,856,624,000, of which $484,629,000 shall be available for construction and renovation (including equipment) of health care and other facilities and other health-related activities as specified in the statement of the managers on the conference report accompanying this Act, and of which $39,499,000 from general revenues, notwithstanding section 1820(j) of the Social Security Act, shall be available for carrying out the Medicare rural hospital flexibility grants program under section 1820 of such Act: Provided, That of the funds made available under this heading, $249,000 shall be available until expended for facilities renovations at the Gillis W. Long Hansen's Disease Center: Provided further, That in addition to fees authorized by section 427(b) of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, fees shall be collected for the full disclosure of information under the Act sufficient to recover the full costs of operating the National Practitioner Data Bank, and shall remain available until expended to carry out that Act: Provided further, That fees collected for the full disclosure of information under the `Health Care Fraud and Abuse Data Collection Program', authorized by section 1128E(d)(2) of the Social Security Act, shall be sufficient to recover the full costs of operating the program, and shall remain available until expended to carry out that Act: Provided further, That $31,000,000 of the funding provided for community health centers shall be used for base grant adjustments for existing centers: Provided further, That no more than $100,000 is available until expended for carrying out the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 233(o) including associated administrative expenses: Provided further, That no more than $45,000,000 is available until expended for carrying out the provisions of Public Law 104-73: Provided further, That $9,941,000 is available until expended for the National Cord Blood Stem Cell Bank Program as described in House Report 108-401: Provided further, That of the funds made available under this heading, $288,283,000 shall be for the program under title X of the Public Health Service Act to provide for voluntary family planning projects: Provided further, That amounts provided to said projects under such title shall not be expended for abortions, that all pregnancy counseling shall be nondirective, and that such amounts shall not be expended for any activity (including the publication or distribution of literature) that in any way tends to promote public support or opposition to any legislative proposal or candidate for public office: Provided further, That $793,872,000 shall be for State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs authorized by section 2616 of the Public Health Service Act: Provided further, That in addition to amounts provided herein, $25,000,000 shall be available from amounts available under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act to carry out Parts A, B, C, and D of title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act to fund section 2691 Special Projects of National Significance: Provided further, That, notwithstanding section 502(a)(1) of the Social Security Act, not to exceed $119,158,000 is available for carrying out special projects of regional and national significance pursuant to section 501(a)(2) of such Act: Provided further, That of the funds provided, $40,000,000 shall be provided to the Denali Commission as a direct lump payment pursuant to Public Law 106-113, of which $10,000,000 shall be for a psychiatric treatment facility in Bethel, Alaska, $10,000,000 shall be for residential and supportive housing for elders, $2,500,000 shall be for medical and dental equipment for rural clinics, and $5,000,000 shall be for upgrade and construction of shelters for victims of domestic violence and child abuse.

Instructions to locate this text yourself on-line: Go to: http://thomas.loc.gov

Click on: "Search Bills and Resolutions"

Select: 108th Congress (2003-2004)

Enter Search: H.R.4818

Click on: "Search"

Click on: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)[H.R.4818.ENR]

H.R.4818 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate) - Federal HHS Appropriations Bill (FY 2005)

[ To see roll call votes in US House and US Senate, click on: Link to the "Bill Summary & Status" file. ]

Scroll about 40% of the way down the page:

DIVISION F--DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

Continue scrolling, click on:

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Under:

Health Resources and Services Administration

Health Resources and Services

"Provided further, That of the funds made available under this heading, $288,283,000 shall be for the program under title X of the Public Health Service Act to provide for voluntary family planning projects:..."

CONTACT: Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary dir., Columbia Christians for Life 803-765-0916 www.christiansforlife.net Columbia, SC CCFL@sc-online.net

[drbrumley]

Knight, before you jump off the bridge and defend this guy, let me say I'm just giving you the info. What you do with it is your business.

President Bush announced his decision to replace John Ashcroft with long time friend and confidant, Alberto Gonzales, as U.S. Attorney General. Many people, including me, speculated that Bush would appoint Gonzales as the next member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Regardless of the specific appointment, by making Gonzales U.S. Attorney General, Bush has placed yet another pro-abortion person in a key leadership position in his administration. In truth, the Bush administration is littered with pro-abortion and homosexual appointments.

For President Bush to make the first two major decisions of his second term the push for amnesty for illegal aliens and the appointment of a pro-abortion judge as U.S. Attorney General should be regarded as a serious "slap-in-the-face" to every conservative who voted for him.


Cite (http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/bush12nov04.html)

[drbrumley]

Shall we continue since Bush HAS nominated a pro abort as chief justice?

[BillyBob]

No he hasn't.

If that were the case, the libs would have lined up and supported him wholeheartedly.

[drbrumley]

No he hasn't.

If that were the case, the libs would have lined up and supported him wholeheartedly.
Nope. The libs hate him because he is a republican. He can support the same policies as the dems, but that dont matter.

[BillyBob]

Nope. The libs hate him because he is a republican. He can support the same policies as the dems, but that dont matter.


That's actually right. Which exemplifies how screwed up the democrat party is.

They don't care about ideology, only power.

[Knight]

Shall we continue since Bush HAS nominated a pro abort as chief justice?Nobody would satisfy you Doc so what's the point?

I don't cheer up and down for any man.

But we do live in the real world.

[drbrumley]

Nobody would satisfy you Doc so what's the point?

I don't cheer up and down for any man.

But we do live in the real world.
Well, thats not exactly right Knight. Bush can nominate you and I would support that nomination cause I KNOW you would tell the world abortion is murder.

[Knight]

Bush can nominate you and I would support that nomination cause I KNOW you would tell the world abortion is murder.Bush couldn't nominate me and you know that.

Furthermore, if he did nominate me (by some bizarre chain of events) two things would happen:

1. My nomination would be rejected by congess.
2. I am guessing you would find some reason to claim I was pro-choice. :(

[drbrumley]

Bush couldn't nominate me and you know that.

Yes I lknow.

Furthermore, if he did nominate me (by some bizarre chain of events) two things would happen:

1. My nomination would be rejected by congess.

Most likely
2. I am guessing you would find some reason to claim I was pro-choice. :(

Now that is a bizarre statement coming from you. I would rail against you if you (being nominated) said as Roberts has said that it is the law of the land and he would not vote to overturn it. If you said in front of the Senate that abortion is murder, then we don't have a problem.

[Mr. 5020]

Bush couldn't nominate me and you know that.

Furthermore, if he did nominate me (by some bizarre chain of events) two things would happen:

1. My nomination would be rejected by congess.
2. I am guessing you would find some reason to claim I was pro-choice. :(:chuckle:

[drbrumley]

:chuckle:
Are you pro choice?

[Mr. 5020]

Are you pro choice?Are you a Democrat?

[drbrumley]

OK, your not pro choice.

But agreeing that I would call Knight pro-choice is irrational.

I mean correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Knight or you for that matter would claim:

“Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

[Mr. 5020]

OK, your not pro choice.You have a keen eye, Grasshopper.
But agreeing that I would call Knight pro-choice is irrational.You're not exactly known for being rational.
I mean correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Knight or you for that matter would claim:“Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”You don't believe that Roe v. Wade set a precedent?

[Skeptic]

Abortion is not murder.

Bush, on the other hand, is a murderer of many thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq! He knew he never had any clear hard evidence of a WMD threat from Iraq. He knew there were plenty of doubts in the intelligence community about suspected WMDs, yet falsely claimed otherwise. He knew that thousands of innocent people would die as a result of his unnecessary invasion of Iraq. Bush is a murderer!

[BillyBob]

:cow:

[elohiym]

Abortion is not murder.

Bush, on the other hand, is a murderer of many thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq! He knew he never had any clear hard evidence of a WMD threat from Iraq. He knew there were plenty of doubts in the intelligence community about suspected WMDs, yet falsely claimed otherwise. He knew that thousands of innocent people would die as a result of his unnecessary invasion of Iraq. Bush is a murderer!The thread is about Bush nominating pro-abortion judges to the bench.

Abortion is murder, and it is a sin.

[Skeptic]

Abortion is murder, and it is a sin. Wrong.

[drbrumley]

Skepic (murderer)

Like toddler and adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to non-humans, but humans in a particular stage of development. Fetus is a Latin word meaning "young one" or "little child." Is stage of development related to a person’s worth? Is a two-year old worth less than a 6-year-old, etc?

[drbrumley]

You have a keen eye, Grasshopper.
You're not exactly known for being rational.
You don't believe that Roe v. Wade set a precedent?

How am I not rational Oscar?

[drbrumley]

Roe v Wade did set a precedent. A bad one at that. And our current Chief Justice says squat on the issue except for what I quoted already. Meaning he is a legal positvist pro abort.

[elohiym]

The latest nominee to the Supreme Court is Harriett Miers. What is her position on abortion? Anyone know?

My guess is that she supports abortion in the case of rape, incest, and congenital birth defects, AND that she believes Roe v. Wade is "settled" law. :down:

[elohiym]

Ms. Miers (never been married), has been a member of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas Texas for 25 years. From Valley View's belief statement:

"We try not to be dogmatic about matters on which believers hold divergent views. Our core beliefs are centered in Christ and His message as supported by Scripture. More obscure doctrine, as well as controversial issues about which the Bible is silent, are left to believers to sort out on their own. On these issues we take no official/dogmatic position."

Okay. I'm seeing a woman who has never been married, formerly a Roman Catholic, who has belonged to an evangelical church that is not dogmatically against abortion. Do I need to spell it out for everyone? P-R-O-A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N.

[drbrumley]

She gave to Al Gore campaigns. Oh My!!!!!

I rest my case once again.

[elohiym]

She gave to Al Gore campaigns. Oh My!!!!!

I rest my case once again.A former Democrat Roman Catholic that "suddenly" became a Republican Evangelical in the 80s. :rolleyes:

Oh, big surprise!

I wonder why she's NEVER been married? Was she convinced by her Catholic upringing that she could be a chaste homosexual or something? (Just wondering) Regardless, how is a woman who doesn't have children going to benefit the war against abortion?

[elohiym]

I first thought Ms. Miers look a little like Florence Henderson (Mrs. Brady), but then I realized she looks like florence Henderson and Anne B. Davis(Alice) morphed.

I don't think that should keep her off the bench, just everything else I've read so far.