Thursday, April 19, 2007
More Cruel and Unusual: Lethal Injection or Partial Birth Abortion?
by John W. Lillpop
Although Democrats constantly promote themselves as champions of the less fortunate and the powerless, the truth is that there is there is damn little fight in liberals when it comes to the truly vulnerable and defenseless.
That would, of course, be the unborn.
Liberal disdain for the unborn was again obvious on April 18 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the inhumane procedure known as partial-birth abortion.
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) reiterated the liberal mantra on abortion by blasting the court's decision in a press release reading as follows:
"This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."
In other words, according to liberals like Hillary, women have a "constitutional right" to kill a fetus that is close to birth.
Those same liberals will argue that it is "cruel and unusual" to stick a needle into a brutal serial killer in order to deliver justice.
Think about: What could possibly be more "cruel and unusual" than crushing the skull of an unborn fetus in order to prevent the miracle of birth?
John Lillpop is a recovering liberal.
Posted by John W Lillpop at 1:56 AM