[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles

Title: Trump Praises His Sister, a Pro-Abortion Extremist Judge
Source: National Review
URL Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corne ... extremist-judge-ramesh-ponnuru
Published: Aug 27, 2015
Author: Ramesh Ponnuru
Post Date: 2015-09-04 07:44:28 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 2780
Comments: 23

Donald Trump told Mark Halperin yesterday that his sister, a federal judge, would be a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice. He also said that “we will have to rule that out now, at least.”

If he ever becomes president, let’s hope he rules it out permanently. Maryanne Trump Barry came up in my book The Party of Death for writing one of those heated judicial decisions in favor of giving constitutional protection to partial-birth abortion. She called a New Jersey law against it a “desperate attempt” to undermine Roe v. Wade. It was, she wrote, “based on semantic machinations, irrational line-drawing, and an obvious attempt to inflame public opinion instead of logic or medical evidence.” It made no difference where the fetus was when it “expired.”

So: The right of abortionists to make a child “expire” by partially extracting her from the womb, sticking scissors in the back of her head, vacuuming out her brain, and crushing her skull to complete her extraction, is right there in the Constitution. But let’s please not have any “semantic machinations.”

Laws against partial-birth abortion had strong bipartisan support. They were attempts to mark an outer limit to the abortion right of Roe. If unborn children could not be protected within the womb, could they at least be protected when partway out? That would be illogical, said Judge Barry. But if the location of fetal death does not matter, then it could hardly matter if the child was all the way outside the womb. Laws against infanticide, too, must be dismissed as irrational line-drawing. The intellectual architect of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, Hadley Arkes, mentions Judge Barry’s decision in his book on the origin of that law, explaining that it was in part designed to head off the dangerous implications of such rulings.

The Supreme Court eventually ruled that partial-birth abortion could be outlawed—but it did so by a margin of one.

It’s understandable that Trump would praise his sister. But when candidates praise relatives who have served in public office—whether they’re members of the Bush, Paul, Clinton, or Trump families—voters are entitled to keep those relatives’ records in mind.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All (#0)

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-04   10:00:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: TooConservative (#0)

"But if the location of fetal death does not matter, then it could hardly matter if the child was all the way outside the womb."

True, but that's not what she said. The argument was partial birth abortion, and she was against "line drawing" as an attempt to incrementally undermine Roe v Wade.

The way she read that decision was that if it's OK to kill the baby in the womb, then it's OK to kill the baby when it's partly in the womb. Logically, there's no other way to read Roe v Wade. That's the law. Deal with it.

Anti-abortion groups know that, so they appeal to the emotional side. Does anyone believe that standard abortion procedures are just fine with them and that they only disagree with that yucky partial birth abortion?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-09-04   10:06:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: misterwhite (#2)

The way she read that decision was that if it's OK to kill the baby in the womb, then it's OK to kill the baby when it's partly in the womb. Logically, there's no other way to read Roe v Wade. That's the law. Deal with it.

The only logical position, if that is the legal reasoning, is that all abortions must be forbidden. Instead, Trump's bloody sister insisted that all children up to and even past birth, could be killed by any means and that no distinction between early- or late-term abortions can or should be made or should even be discussed.

It is reasoning worthy of the Nazis. Would even Margaret Sanger herself go quite this far, at least in public?

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-04   10:31:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: TooConservative (#3)

"The only logical position, if that is the legal reasoning, is that all abortions must be forbidden."

I agree. I believe it's murder. But the U.S. Supreme Court says it isn't.

"It is reasoning worthy of the Nazis."

Nope. It's logical. If murdering a baby in the womb is legal, then murdering a baby partially in the womb must also be legal. You're blaming her for Roe v Wade. She had nothing to do with that decision.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-09-04   11:36:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: misterwhite (#4)

If murdering a baby in the womb is legal, then murdering a baby partially in the womb must also be legal.

Then so would the murder of a baby already born. Because location is incidental.

That is what Judge Trump said and wrote, rather extensively.

Of course, your deep love for Donaldo has rendered you incapable of recognizing this. Perhaps you even think this is a pro-life position.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-04   13:34:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: TooConservative (#0) (Edited)

National Review: The gift that keeps on giving ... you articles to post.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-09-04   13:46:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: TooConservative (#5)

"Then so would the murder of a baby already born. Because location is incidental."

Her actual quote was: "While there are unquestionably numerous ethical, philosophical, and moral issues surrounding abortion, we are unpersuaded that these issues -- or our legal analysis -- should turn on where in the woman's body the fetus expires during an abortion." (my bold)
-- http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1210668.html

Another point. While the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit was hearing the New Jersey case, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Stenberg v. Carhart, finding Nebraska's “partial birth abortion” statute -- a statute nearly identical to the New Jersey one -- unconstitutional.

Third, Justice Alito agreed with Justice Barry in this case. Are you going to call him pro- abortion, too?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-09-04   14:20:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: misterwhite (#6)

National Review: The gift that keeps on giving ... you articles to post.

I'm not the one trying to defend these Trump abortion extremists.

It is humorous to watch you twist into knots trying to defend your man-crush on Donaldo.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-04   18:24:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: TooConservative (#8)

"I'm not the one trying to defend these Trump abortion extremists."

No. You're the one portraying them as such.

I'm the one citing facts demonstrating that you are wrong.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-09-04   20:10:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: misterwhite (#9)

I'm the one citing facts demonstrating that you are wrong.

Her awful ruling is still her ruling and Trump cites her as the only jurist he admires.

They are both champions of partial-birth abortion. You can't wiggle away from it. They both have an outspoken public record on the subject.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-04   20:52:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: TooConservative, mister white, redleghunter (#0)

She called a New Jersey law against it a “desperate attempt” to undermine Roe v. Wade. It was, she wrote, “based on semantic machinations, irrational line-drawing, and an obvious attempt to inflame public opinion instead of logic or medical evidence.” It made no difference where the fetus was when it “expired.”

Have you seen the latest trend that is gaining traction in the medical " intellectual class " ? A few years ago , a couple of medical 'ethicists " proposed that since babies aren't really fully developed after birth ,that it is moral and ethical to do "after-birth " abortions . (I guess we shouldn't call that "infanticide " either .)

Publishing in the Journal of Medical Ethics ;"two philosophers", Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argues that If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

jme.bmj.com/content/early...dethics-2011-100411.full#

They don't give a time frame when that baby is actually a person . Maybe it's a day or 2 . Maybe they are thinking more in line with Herod ,using a 2 year window. Does it matter ? The same arguments for offing a fetus can be applied to a baby evidently . Why wouldn't it then be a standard applied to the infirmed or the elderly ? It's all the same moral base ..... someone else deciding someone else's worth as a human ,and having the power to terminate that person.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-09-05   5:42:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: tomder55 (#11)

Good points all. I have no doubt Supreme Court Justice Trump would consider it all very seriously. To do otherwise might "undermine Roe v. Wade" and we can't have that.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-05   7:23:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: TooConservative (#10)

"Her awful ruling is still her ruling"

a) Alito joined her in her decision and b) the U.S. Supreme Court itself had just ruled a similar law unconstitutional.

Now, where do you get "awful ruling"? It's "awful" because you, personally, disagree?

Her ruling was a logical extension of Roe v Wade. Blame those justices for that "awful ruling".

misterwhite  posted on  2015-09-05   10:48:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: tomder55 (#11)

"A few years ago , a couple of medical 'ethicists " proposed that since babies aren't really fully developed after birth ,that it is moral and ethical to do "after-birth " abortions."

The woman has nine months to think about it -- 270 days and nights -- and is unable to decide until after the baby is born? Bullshit. Too late. It's now a separate person with constitutional rights.

To say that babies may be terminated because they "aren't really fully developed after birth", well, that describes a lot of Democrats.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-09-05   10:56:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: misterwhite (#13)

a) Alito joined her in her decision and b) the U.S. Supreme Court itself had just ruled a similar law unconstitutional.

Given all the other awful and unconstitutional rulings by a Court gone mad with its own social engineering schemes, I don't have any regard for that ruling or for Trump's ruling.

This was a partial-birth abortion case, with the scissors stabbing the baby in the back of the head after it was partially delivered.

If you think that is a pro-life position, you are completely delusional.

We'll see how Trump fares once the IA/NH/SC pro-life groups start weighing in on Trump and his judge sister.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-05   10:58:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: TooConservative (#12)

"To do otherwise might "undermine Roe v. Wade" and we can't have that."

Seems to me the best way to get rid of Roe v Wade is to expose the horrors of abortion, including partial birth and the harvesting of fetal organs, not sanitize it to an acceptable level.

You call yourself pro-life when the only time you go apeshit is partial birth abortion? Nice message ... "Abortion is one thing, but this partial birth stuff has gotta stop".

misterwhite  posted on  2015-09-05   11:05:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: TooConservative (#0) (Edited)

I think Trump will be helpful in a lot of positive change that the RINO's don't have the balls to do and the libtarded don't have the foresight to do... but abolishing abortion I doubt will be one of those things... I doubt he'd have the political muscle to reverse this issue.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-09-05   11:06:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: misterwhite (#16)

You call yourself pro-life when the only time you go apeshit is partial birth abortion? Nice message ... "Abortion is one thing, but this partial birth stuff has gotta stop".

You're a dumbass.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-05   11:08:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: GrandIsland (#17)

I think Trump will be helpful in a lot of positive change that the RINO's don't have the balls to do and the libtarded don't have the foresight to do...

I do get the anger at the GOPe. What I don't get is how Trump is somehow the messiah of conservative America.

It makes me consider that I've been hanging out with very very gullible people that are fundamentally irrational.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-05   11:10:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: TooConservative (#15)

"If you think that is a pro-life position, you are completely delusional."

No, the pro-life position is to be against Roe v Wade, not just some aspect of it that you find gruesome.

"We'll see how Trump fares once the IA/NH/SC pro-life groups start weighing in on Trump and his judge sister."

Trump is pro-life. His sister's judicial decision, albeit correct, is irrelevant.

Roe v Wade was decided in 1973 -- 42 years ago. Since then, we've had pro-life Presidents and pro-choice Presidents. What's changed? NOTHING.

Yet you act as though the fate of the nation hangs on Trump's position, and that some obscure legal finding made by his judge sister 15 years years ago should be a factor.

What's next from you? Trump has a gay cousin?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-09-05   11:32:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: GrandIsland (#17) (Edited)

"but abolishing abortion I doubt will be one of those things... I doubt he'd have the political muscle to reverse this issue."

Since Roe v Wade was decided 42 years ago, what pro-life President has done anything about abortion? None.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision was based on their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, not some law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Because of that, abortion will not change without a constitutional amendment and, ironically, the President has no constitutional role in that process.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-09-05   12:28:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: TooConservative (#19)

"What I don't get is how Trump is somehow the messiah of conservative America."

The difference is that people believe Trump will actually DO something about these issues, rather than just giving them lip service.

His positions are that much different than the other Republican candidates.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-09-05   12:33:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: misterwhite (#22) (Edited)

The difference is that people believe Trump will actually DO something about these issues, rather than just giving them lip service.

That would be because they are gullible LIVs.

His positions are that much different than the other Republican candidates.

While his record is that of a typical NYC Democrat which is what he was until sometime in 2009.

Every other GOP candidate has a much better record on a range of issues.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-05   14:23:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com