Is Hillary Palin McCain?

August 30, 2008

Sarah Palin. An amazing choice by John McCain. She seems to have it all, brains, beauty, conservative credentials, and the Clinton campaign team. What more can a woman candidate ask for?

I wouldn’t trust the Clinton’s as far as I can throw them and fortunately they are a creation of the absolute loyalty that Democrats give one another no matter what. They are the problem that Democrats must contend with. They are a problem the Democrats should have cut loose of a long time ago.

I thought something was fishy when I first heard the Democrats reaction to Sarah Palin — that she doesn’t have the experience to be President, or even vice President.

Excuse me? That’s like saying the New York Jets made a bad decision in Brett Favre because he’s too old and the QB on the bench is a rookie. That the best decision would be to get a completely different rookie to be the starting quarterback and have an experienced QB sit on the bench. Isn’t that the essence of what we are hearing from the Democrat party?

Experience isn’t an important issue in the Vice Presidency, after all, the Vice President is going to get experience, the intelligence, and be the best suited for the job by working under somebody who does have experience. And exactly who’s bright idea is it to make Sarah Palin’s experience an issue when she has more experience in the executive than the starting QB for the other party? Barack Obama doesn’t have any executive experience. So why, if one is so concerned about the experience of the Vice President, would that same person support the candidate with even less experience in the Presidency?

Why indeed? When I watched the Democrat convention this past week, I needed some uppers just to stay awake… and at the rate the Democrats were going I should have overdosed. It was boring. No emotions stirred. I didn’t laugh, not even once. I got mad a couple of times during Barack Obama’s speech, but mostly because how annoying it is when somebody has no clue what he’s talking about, and people are listening to him on a large scale.

There were no memorable lines. There was no moment that made you jump out of your seat. There was no moment that made you say, “I’m voting for Barack.” And not even twelve hours after the close of the DNC convention, John McCain made this election memorable for all. And exactly who’s convention was it when Hillary Clinton has her night, the Bill Clinton gives a ten minute speech that takes 30 minutes to deliver. Yes they say all the right things… or at least appear to do so.

The Clinton era is coming to an end, and still they won’t go gently into that good night. I flipped on CNN and there was James Carville making the case that Sarah Palin just did not have the experience too lead and I couldn’t help but to wonder, is the Clinton group trying to undermine the Obama campaign by sending their surrogates out criticize the experience of McCain’s Veep nominee and in doing so, intentionally under cutting Barack Obama’s attempts to down play his own experience?

I like Sarah Palin, I wish she was the top of the ticket instead of McCain. Sheesh, what’s our electoral process coming to? First I supported Ron Paul, but when there was three I supported Hillary Clinton because I figured she was the best of the last, and I’m voting for John McCain because of his running mate. Not exactly my idea of a great election.


The Boston Globe (Boston, MA) May 7, 1989 | Ethan Bronner, Globe Staff One in a series of occasional articles on abortion.

It happens occasionally today that a doctor in one room is destroying a 21-week-old fetus growing inside a teen-ager who wants nothing more than to be rid of her pregnancy while a doctor in the next room is working feverishly to save the life of a 24-week-old fetus delivered prematurely by a woman who wants nothing more than to have her tiny, translucent baby survive.

The two procedures, aimed at fetuses precariously close in development, represent widely hailed technical advances of the past decade that have altered the abortion debate.

They are what Justice Sandra Day O’Connor called the “collision course” of Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision making abortion legal nationwide.

Some premature infants of 23 weeks’ gestation and weighing about a pound, whose survival would have been hopeless in the 1970s, are now being saved.

At the same time, second-term abortions up to 24 weeks are safer and more palatable because of the development of the “dilatation and evacuation” procedure that pulls apart a fetus in utero.

Before, doctors induced early delivery, putting the woman through the mental and physical trauma of labor for a baby she did not want and the chance that the delivered fetus would twitch or gasp, forcing doctors to try to save what was then unsavable.

While today’s method is easier on the woman, it can be hard on doctors who must crush forming skulls and bones and scrape and suction the remains. For that reason, many doctors avoid performing late term abortions.

“The neonatologist and the abortionist are now at each other’s door,” said Dr. Donald Reid, associate director of neonatology at St. Joseph’s Hospital in London, Ontario. He recently delivered two babies just over 22 weeks, weighing 430 and 440 grams, less than a pound.

The notion of aborting fetuses that could be saved provides abortion opponents with their most potent ammunition for attacks on the Roe decision and the current framework of legal abortion.

Roe is being reexamined by the high court this term in a closely watched Missouri case called Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services. The case tests a law that, among other things, requires abortion providers to try to ascertain whether any fetus 20 weeks or over due to be aborted would likely survive.

Some 15,000 abortions annually, 1 percent of the 1.5 million performed in the United States, occur after 20 weeks’ gestation. Most abortion clinics will not perform them because they occur too close to the time of live birth and require special skill. Techniques to determine the age of a fetus have improved markedly, but a margin of error of about a week still exists.

Abortions at that stage are mostly on teen-agers who tried to deny their pregnancies for months or on women with health problems or deformed fetuses, said Barbara Radford, executive director of the National Abortion Federation. this web site articles on abortion

As a result, abortion-rights advocates consider the issue of late-term abortions to be overblown, a tool of their opponents to gain the rhetorical and emotional upper hand. They say the number is small and for widely approved reasons.

“I hear too little about the rights of women in this debate,” said Dr. Baird Bardarson, who runs an abortion clinc in Washington state and performs late abortions. “This magic bit of viability taking away the rights of women is nonsense.” Yet to abortion foes, 15,000 abortions are 15,000 too many. Nothing in the Roe ruling has been so strongly emphasized by them. And nothing so illustrates how science can be marshaled for political aims. here articles on abortion

Roe, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, divided the normal 40-week pregnancy into three trimesters of approximately 13 weeks each. It said that during the first trimester, the state has no role in abortions, and in the second trimester it has a role only in protecting a woman’s health by making abortions safer.

Beginning in the third trimester, when fetuses are beginning to be viable, or capable of survival outside the womb with artificial aid, the state’s interest in preserving fetal life became compelling, the court said.

A state could regulate abortion from that stage as long as the regulation did not threaten the mother’s health, which the court defined broadly to include mental health.

Roe said that viability “is usually placed at about seven months,” or 28 weeks, “but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.” To abortion opponents, such specificity was illegitimate constitutional law, more legislation than interpretation. Choosing viability as the starting point of state interest, they have said, is arbitrary.

“The Supreme Court wrote a medical standard into the Constitution,” said Richard Glasow, education director of the National Right to Life Committee.

“Not only was that inappropriate, but technology has changed that standard. There is no better proof that the abortion issue doesn’t belong in the Supreme Court but in the state Legislatures, which can change laws as other things change.” Even liberal legal scholars call the viability aspect of Roe troubling.

Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School, an ardent advocate of Roe, wrote in his 1987 book, “American Constitutional Law,” that “nothing in the Supreme Court’s opinion provides a satisfactory explanation of why the fetal interest should not be deemed overriding prior to viability, particularly when a legislative majority chooses to regard the fetus as a human being from the moment of conception and perhaps even when it does not.” The shifts in recent years in the point of viability have often seemed almost equally difficult for Roe defenders.

At the time of Roe, a 28-week-old fetus had about one chance in 10 of surviving, said Alan R. Fleischman, chairman of neonatology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.

Today, survival of such a fetus through medical intervention is nearly routine, and viability has moved four weeks earlier. Still, as abortion rights advocates point out, only about 100 abortions a year take place after 24 weeks.

Abortion opponents say the lower limit of viability is a constantly moving target. O’Connor once declared that “fetal viability in the first trimester of pregnancy may be possible in the not-too-distant future.” Her remark reflected conventional wisdom. The optimism of boundless scientific progress combined with genuine advances led even some scientists to declare that a future of artificial wombs and placentas was within sight.

Now, most scientists are sounding pessimistic about imminent advances in fetal viability, saying it has been pushed to the limit of the Roe language — “even at 24 weeks” — and will not move any further soon.

A group of 167 scientists and physicians, including 11 Nobel laureates, submitted a brief in the Webster case to argue that the viability threshold has in fact not changed since Roe.

The scientists stated: “Since Roe vs. Wade, great strides have been made in medicine, but the significance of those strides should not be misunderstood. Advances in medical technology have enhanced the probability of survival of infants born prematurely at 24 weeks and later. . . . However, these advances have not significantly changed the earliest date of viability, which remains approximately at the 24-week mark recognized in Roe vs. Wade.” The brief represents the consensus in science that progress from existing technology has been nearly exhausted, and a barrier on fetal viability has been reached at about 23 or 24 weeks.

Before then, vital organs, especially the lungs and kidneys, are not sufficiently developed. One would have to substitute for them, not simply aid them, something no one yet knows how to do.

“If we develop an artificial womb, all bets are off,” said Fleischman. “But nowhere in America is such research being funded or known to be going on.” Abortion foes say the emphasis on 24 weeks as an absolute barrier is politically motivated.

“The fact that some doctors maintain there is a bottom line in science boggles the mind,” said Glasow.

“We don’t dispute that 23 or 24 weeks is the limit today. But Blackmun wrote a medical standard into the Constitution, and they are trying to bolster that and say it is good forever. It isn’t, and the next decade will prove it.” BRONNE;05/03 CORCOR;05/08,20:25 ABORTI07 Ethan Bronner, Globe Staff


Please help Louisiana Conservative Dot Com. Please donate $5, $10, or whatever you can afford to help our cause today!

Like Box