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.

What I Learned From The CPAC Straw Poll

Captain Ed sees little in Romney's CPAC victory. I'm not sure what his evidence is (other than being there), but here's how he views the Romney win:

However, the straw poll probably reflects Romney's organizing abilities far more than his popular support among conservatives. The Romney campaign turned CPAC from a get-acquainted event to a mini-convention by recruiting scores of young activists to attend CPAC and haranguing attendees to vote for Mitt. The Brownback campaign did the same with a smaller coterie of foot soldiers. None of the other candidates bothered to do anything of the kind.

In my opinion, Mitt's win comes from his mix of conservative values and a great Presidential appearance. It's CPAC; they're going to pick a conservative. And since the only other ones in the race (Gingrich and Tancredo) don't have much name recognition, they went with the conservative they felt was the most electable.

Then how did Giuliani and McCain do so well? They're not exactly the model conservatives. And McCain didn't even bother going to CPAC! Well, I'd say their high rankings are the results of scared Republicans. It can be a little daunting when they media is constantly licking Obama and Hillary's balls and paying no attention to the Republicans. Some of the folks at CPAC probably just went with the Republicans with the most name recognition (McCain and Giuliani) out of fear that they didn't have anyone electable.

It's far too early to be calling the Presidential race. I doubt most people could even guess who would win the primaries, let alone the general election. But if there's one thing CPAC showed, it's that conservatives won't be frightened by the Mainstream media into voting for a candidate just for name recognition; we'll pick a conservative who shares our values and can do the job.

"Will the Real Rudy show up at CPAC?"

A good question. I know there's some question as to wether or not Romney is set in his conservative ways, but I think he is and I find videos like this of Giuliani disconcerting.



Meanwhile, we all know McCain is a Liberal in Republican's clothes, which makes me have to agree with Paul over at Power line who said, "Romney is the social conservative in this race as far as I'm concerned."

Giuliani Tries To Fool Conservatives

Load of crap:

"We don't all see eye to eye on everything," Giuliani told the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

"You and I have a lot of common beliefs that are the same, but we have some that are different," he told several thousand activists, comparing such disagreements to different perspectives within a marriage.

But Giuliani argued he shared the core conservative creed on low taxes, the historic role of American primacy, a tough stance in the war on terror, and freeing individuals from the shackles of government.

Yeah, and the core conservative values of gun control, gay marriage and abortion? Give me a break. It' going to have to be a sad field of candidates for him to get my vote in the primary.

Giuliani's In! Shock!

Giuliani confirmed yesterday that he is indeed seeking the Republican party's nomination for President, you know, for those of you who were unsure as to whether he would run or not.

Giuliani Begins Shift Rightward

The NYT had this to say about Giuliani shifting his abortion rhetoric to the right (try to ignore the NYT's pompous, elitist sneers):

As he prepares for a possible run for president — a road that goes deep into the heart of conservative America — Rudolph W. Giuliani takes with him a belief in abortion rights that many think could derail his bid to capture the Republican nomination.

But in recent weeks, as he has courted voters in South Carolina and talked to conservative media outlets, Mr. Giuliani has highlighted a different element of his thinking on the abortion debate. He has talked about how he would appoint “strict constructionist” judges to the Supreme Court — what abortion rights advocates say is code among conservatives for those who seek to overturn or limit Roe v. Wade, the 1973 court ruling declaring a constitutional right to abortion.

All I can say is that I hope it's true. We're talking about a guy who actually has a good shot at handily defeating any Democrat opponent, and unfortunately he is extremely to the Left on abortion (once saying that, "hypothetically," he'd pay for his own daughter's abortion if she asked him).

Good News ...

... Oh wait. No it's not:

Post-ABC Poll: Clinton, Giuliani Lead Primary Fields

Nothing motivates the base like an election between a candidate you hate and a candidate you could care less for. I never feel better than on an election day when I vote for someone I don't want to hold the office.