First Victory For Unborn Children Since 1973

Unborn children got their first major win before the US Supreme Court today, as the court decided to uphold the partial-abortion ban:

The Supreme Court's conservative majority handed anti-abortion forces a major victory Wednesday in a decision that bans a controversial abortion procedure and set the stage for further restrictions.

For the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, the justices upheld a nationwide ban on a specific abortion method, labeled partial-birth abortion by its opponents.

While this is good news, millions of unborn children are still be slaughtered daily around the world. At the very least, this will further bring to the attention of the public how this horrible procedure works.

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion (odd), in which he notes the law is not unconstitutional in that, "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice..." But curses! Do conservatives want women to die! The law doesn't include an exception for when the mother's life is at risk! This argument just shows that liberals are missing the argument conservatives make. We believe that abortion is murder; in what way does that make it sound like we'd make an exception for murder to save the mother's life?

President Bush says:

"I am pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion," he said. "Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America."

I don't know who decided that the Supreme Court has the right to define when life begins and ends, but I guess that's what happens when the court has the ability to tell us what their powers are. Checks and balances? More like Judicial rule with an iron fist.

It was a 5-4 decision, with Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and Scalia in the majority. All-in-all, great news.

***Update, 4:44pm***

Drudge rounded up the response of most of the Presidential candidates.

Hillary: "Erosion of our Constitutional rights..."
Obama: "I strongly disagree..."
Edwards: "I couldn't disagree more strongly..."
Romney: "A step forward..."
McCain: "I'm very happy about the decision..."
Giuliani: "The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion..." (BS)
Brownback: The ruling would result "in lives being saved."

Well, I guess Edwards will get the Democrat nomination. After all, he "couldn't disagree more strongly." Obama just disagreed.

Elizebeth Edward's Cancer Is Back

Looks like Elizabeth Edward's cancer is out of remission. I can't believe he's going on with the campaign, I don't think I'd be able to. But then, that's what they've devoted their lives to, so I can see her not wanting it all thrown out because of her cancer.

I think we all saw this coming with yesterdays news that they'd be having a press conference today after John Edwards flew home to go to the doctor with her for her check-up. My prayers go out to the Edwards and all other people suffering this horrible disease.

I feel shallow making a political point with this one, but how much would you be willing to bet that, as usual, the conservatives are actually concerned for Elizabeth Edward's life and that liberals have probably said some disgusting things about the recent passing of conservative columnist Cathy Seipp at the hands of lung cancer (she never smoked a day in her life, by the way)?

The Diggbats didn't even break from their practice of burying things from LGF for an obituary for Cathy. The stories that did slip through had sarcastic comments like this one:

Yes, remebering [sic] the gallant Cathy Seipp. What I remeber [sic] best is how gallant she was. That is what I remeber [sic].

There was this lovely comment on Kos from April, so I guess it's alright because she only had cancer, she hadn't died yet:

I'll reserve my sympathy for people more deserving of it, thanks

And right below it, this comment about Cathy's struggle with her insurance company:

but I never forget that it is people who share her beliefs that helped bring this fate down on her and all of our heads. If it weren't for the Republicans and the invisible hand true believers, we might all have universal health coverage by now.

Now, I was surprised at how many comments on these libs sites weren't horrific (not many, but still, any is better than they usually do), but most still made my stomach turn.

Now, here are a few from those vile conservatives over at Hot Air:

To Sen. Edwards: sincerest best wishes for your wife’s health.

Best wishes to the Edwards family and to Elizabeth for a full recovery. Say what you want about the man as a politician, but his priorities are well in order on this one.

Pray for them.

This is the closest any of those evil right-wingers got to stepping out of line:

I hope it’s not the cancer, but I can’t feel too bad about Edwards dropping out. It was hard to take him seriously.

However, I wouldn’t wish cancer on anyone.

And he's just knocking Edwards while wishing his wife the best.

Anyway, my prayers go out to Elizabeth. They also go out to these moonbats; clearly, something is wrong with their heads...

What A Fag (It's A Joke, Settle Down)

Apparently Ann was right: John Edwards, America's first female President?

Edwards To Boycott Democrat Debate On Fox News

John Edwards knows that he really has not shot at the Democrats' presidential nomination, and so he continues to take a wild shot by trying to appeal to the extreme left of the party:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards won't participate in a debate co-hosted by Fox News and the Nevada Democratic Party, his campaign said, as party officials tried to settle a dustup over their partnership with the cable network.

Edwards' campaign said the involvement of Fox News, which is often accused by liberals of having a conservative bias, was part of the decision to pass on the Aug. 14 debate in Reno.

"There were a number of factors and Fox was one of those. We're already planning to participate in a jam-packed schedule of debates across this country ... we can't attend every single debate and forum," the campaign said in a statement.

Other factor that have convinced him to skip the first debate: he doesn't want to win. While it may be a good move in some ways to appeal to the nutroots and moonbats and what-not, I think the other candidates have probably realized the best way to win support is to get out your message and distinguish yourself from the other candidates.

See if you can catch the conflict of opinion and truth in the next chunk of article (bolded to help you out):

The two Democratic presidential frontrunners, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, have not indicated whether they will attend the Nevada debate. Fox boss Rupert Murdoch threw a Senate fundraiser for Clinton, and is said to have a good relationship with the former first lady.

Online activists and bloggers quickly hailed Edwards' decision as a victory in their campaign to urge Nevada Democrats to drop Fox News as a partner.

MoveOn.org Civic Action says it has collected more than 260,000 signatures on a petition that calls the cable network a "mouthpiece for the Republican Party, not a legitimate news channel."

Yeah. Clearly Rupert had the intention of creating a "mouthpiece for the Republican Party" when he founded Fox.

Fox is and will always be a right-wing bogey man to the left, who feel the need to place all of the blame for their failing party on someone or something.

John Edwards and Jesus

John Edwards is talking about Jesus, which as any conservative knows, Democrats + Jesus = foot-in-mouth disorder.

The moronic thing that Edwards said:

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says Jesus would be appalled at how the United States has ignored the plight of the suffering, and that he believes children should have private time to pray at school.

It's nice to have some Freudian proof of John Edwards' lack of belief in Jesus. And where is that proof you ask? In his wording: "Jesus would be ..." Anyone who actually believes in the Risen Lord, Jesus Christ would have said, "Jesus is no doubt appalled ..."

Just another example of some secular humanist Democrat invoking Jesus in the Bible Belt because they think that the people there are so dumb they'll think, "Hey, I like Jesus too. I should vote for this guy."

Bryan over at Hot Air says about this quote:

Keep in mind that among the rationales for the Iraq war is that it would alleviate the Iraqi people’s suffering under Saddam. Keep in mind that Edwards chides America for ignoring the suffering of others. Keep in mind that Americans are consistently the most charitable people on the planet. And keep in mind that Edwards thinks the Iraq war, for which he voted, was unnecessary. America ignores suffering even though it leads the world in charity, but goes to war unnecessarily to alleviate suffering, and that’s also bad. Keep all that in mind. Congratulations! You have cognitive dissonance just like John Edwards!

I think Democrats should just follow their guts and avoid Jesus.

Edwards Doesn't Apologize

The third Democrat in so many days to completely eat his words regarding the affairs of the Middle East and the War on Terror:

WASHINGTON John Edwards' presidential campaign wants to make it clear that he doesn't consider Israel a threat to world peace.

A spokesman for the 2008 Democratic candidate issued a statement today denying such a report on Variety.com.

Columnist Peter Bart reports that Edwards told a Hollywood fundraiser last month that the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities is perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace.

Edwards' spokesman Jonathan Prince says the article is erroneous. He says Edwards says one of the greatest short-term threats to world peace is Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Edwards - Pull Out (You've Got Enough Children)

Here's a little insight into one of the many men who wants to be the commander and chief of our armed forces:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Wednesday that he would immediately pull about a third of U.S. combat troops out of Iraq if he were president.

Congress should also cut military funding to force President Bush to do so, Edwards said.

Edwards is going a step farther than rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who want to cap the number of troops in Iraq to prevent Bush's increase, but are reluctant to cut funding while soldiers are on the ground.

"At this point, the escalation is under way, so blocking it is not enough," Edwards told reporters in a conference call. "So what I'm doing today is calling on Congress to take the next step, which is to cap funding."

Hillary: 'I'm In'

Oh God; I think every right-winger's worst nightmare has come true. Watch this nauseating video of Hillary Clinton announcing her "exploratory committee" (aka, she's running for president.) Imagine a Clinton/Obama ticket... Just makes you want to die, doesn't it?

In case you missed it, Obama and Edwards (yes, the same crazy trial lawyer as last time) are also running. Here are their nauseating videos:





***Update, 01/21/07, 5:59pm***

We've got the Hillary video off of YouTube, view it here and you won't be giving her site traffic!