Thursday, 19 April 2007


Ken Berwitz

Yesterday the US Supreme Court upheld the ban on all partial birth abortions, which was voted through congress and signed by the President in 2003.  I fully support their ruling and hope they overturn Roe v Wade as well.  But this does not mean I am a hardline opponent of abortions rights.  

How can that be?  Let me show you.

First off, here is my position on abortion:

----   I support the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies;

----   Because the woman becomes pregnant and would give birth to the baby, I believe she must have the final word on whether she carries to term.

----   I believe that until the fetus has a beating heart and brain activity it has not developed to the stage where it can be considered a living human being.  For this reason I support all forms of contraception, including the so-called "day after" pill, and abortions to that point.

----   I believe that when the fetus DOES have a beating heart and brain activity it IS a living human being.  After this point it is not an "abortion", it is infanticide.  The only reason I would support an "abortion" then, would be if the woman's life was convincingly at risk. 

----   I believe, as noted before, that the biological father cannot have the right to decide whether or not his partner's pregnancy should end in abortion or go to term.  But I also believe that he cannot reasonably be put in the position of becoming an involuntary father by that partner, thus responsible for upbringing and support. 

There is no good solution here.  The only one that makes sense to me is giving the biological father a window of time when he can declare that he does or does not accept the responsibilities of fatherhood.  If he declines and the woman gives birth, she will be considered the only legal guardian and will be solely responsible for upbringing and support.  If he should have a change of heart after the fact, the woman should have the final word as to whether or not he can be brought back into the picture and considered the legal father at that time.


Ok, there's my position on abortion.  Now let's talk about the USSC decision. 

Interestingly, a report on the Today show this morning inadvertently brought out the key issue:  it mentioned that, 34 years ago, the Supreme Court ESTABLISHED abortion rights. 

That's right, ESTABLISHED.  That's what it said and they're 100% correct.  The Supreme Court did just that.

The problem?  the Supreme Court has no authority whatsoever to establish ANY rights.  Its job is to judge whether something is or is not constitutional.   It cannot establish rights that don't exist. That is the sole province of the legislative and ultimately executive branches. 

There is nothing in the constitution of the United States that says or in any way implies the right to have an abortion.  And before you chime in with "well they never envisioned this over 200 years ago when the constitution was written", let me remind you that there is a process for amending the constitution.  Abortion rights can be redefined any time the country want them to be.  It never has been done.

I'll tell you something the constitution does say, though, via one of those amendments (the 10th):  - 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -

That amendment fully explains why I would like Roe v Wade tossed out.  If there is no constitutional right to abortion, then it is a states' rights issue.  I believe every state, individually, should have the right, therefore, to establish its own abortion law.  If state A votes to ban abortions, so be it.  If state B votes to give greater abortion rights than Roe v Wade, so be it.  That is their prerogative.

If you want one uniform federal law regarding abortion then you put it in the constitution first and then create the law.  Not the other way around.

Finally, we come to the specific ruling, which is to ban what is commonly referred to as "partial birth abortion". 

Partial birth abortion occurs DURING childbirth when the baby is in the process of exiting the mother's body.  A typical procedure involves sticking a needle into the baby's skull and sucking out his/her brains.   

Where does the (usually liberal) AMA stand here?  The AMA has never taken a definitive position on partial birth abortion.  But its council on legislation voted unanimously to recommend that the AMA board support the legislation the Supreme Court upheld yesterday.  One of the council members stated that the board felt it was not a recognized medical technique and that the "...procedure is basically repulsive".

Me, I don't need much more than the knowledge of who it is done to (a baby in the process of being born) and what is done to the baby.  It seems to me that anyone who can't figure out why there are good reasons to ban this procedure should seek competent psychiatric help. 

If josef mengele had performed partial birth abortions during the third reich, they'd have tried him for it at Nuremberg.   Goodbye and good riddance to partial birth abortions.



rational You're a rabid rightwing repugnican. When you get pregnant you can have an opinion. Until then shut up (04/19/07)


Ken Berwitz

Senator harry reid, beaming with the success of a man who media have let off the hook for his $60,000 take from Jack Abramoff and malodorous land deals in Nevada, has now assured our President - and the troops and the country - that we have lost the war in Iraq.

Before you accuse me of taking something out of context, read this:-

Iraq war is 'lost': US Democrat leader

The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.

Reid said he had delivered the same message to US President George W. Bush on Wednesday, when the US president met with senior lawmakers to discuss how to end a standoff over an emergency war funding bill. -

I do not own the words to describe the sickness I feel regarding this absolute scumbag, who tells our troops in the field, as they risk their lives on our behalf, that this war is lost.

Has this scumbag ever read the OBJECTIVES of the war?  Have you?  If you go to you can read them, exactly as they were put forth by the white house on February 26, 2003.  This isn't some revision of history to make a political point, this is right from the start.

If you don't feel like taking a look, here is the key passage:-

  • Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
    • Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
    • Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
    • Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism. -

    As even the most cynical anti-war person would admit, we are between the short and medium term right now.  And that, realistically, is where we should be. 

    For any senator of the United States to declare defeat from the comfort of his leather seat in Washington DC is despicable.  For the senate majority leader to do so is beyond despicable.  And for him to PUBLICLY STATE this to our country, our troops and our enemy as we fight?  What side is this scumbag on?  Who is he rooting for?  Does he care even one little bit about the damage this does?

    When does politics take a back seat to fighting a war?  When does it take a back seat to fighting the war against terrorism?  Bin laden has TOLD us that Iraq is key to his victory, and this scumbag is telling you he won, even as we are in the process of achieving our stated objectives.

    If this is our current leadership in congress than god help us.  And I don't mean that figuratively.


    Ken Berwitz

    Some stories don't need any commentary and this is one of them:

    Edwards Reimburses Campaign for Haircuts
    Apr 19 11:33 AM US/Eastern
    Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat John Edwards is trying to get out of a hairy situation, reimbursing his presidential campaign $800 for two visits with a Beverly Hills stylist.

    Two $400 cuts by stylist Joseph Torrenueva, who told The Associated Press that the former North Carolina senator is a longtime client, showed up on Edwards' campaign spending reports filed this weekend. Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz said it never should have been there.

    "The bill was sent to the campaign. It was inadvertently paid," Schultz said. "John Edwards will be reimbursing the campaign."

    Edwards is also the subject of a popular YouTube spoof poking fun at his youthful good looks. The video shows the candidate combing his tresses to the dubbed-in tune of "I Feel Pretty."

    Federal Election Commission records show Edwards' campaign also spent $250 in services from Designworks Salon in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 in services from the Pink Sapphire in Manchester, N.H.

    Schultz said those services were legitimate campaign expenditures to prepare Edwards for media appearances.

    Buy Our Book Here!

    Return to Current Blog
    We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

    About Us

    Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

    At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

    So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

    And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!