Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Mountain. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban
Topic Started: Apr 18 2007, 10:12 AM (638 Views)
legitlinda
Member Avatar
Ruler of the Mountain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image

Story Link


Court upholds ban on abortion procedure By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

The administration defended the law as drawing a bright line between abortion and infanticide.

The decision pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how — not whether — to perform an abortion.

Abortion rights groups as well as the leading association of obstetricians and gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although government lawyers and others who favor the ban said there are alternate, more widely used procedures that remain legal.

The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.

"I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation's laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life," said Rep. John Boehner (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

Said Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety. ... This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them." She had argued that point before the justices.

More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday's ruling.

Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.

"Today's decision is alarming," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method — dismembering the fetus in the uterus — is available and, indeed, much more common.

In 2000, the court with key differences in its membership struck down a state ban on partial-birth abortions. Writing for a 5-4 majority at that time, Justice Breyer said the law imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to make an abortion decision.

The Republican-controlled Congress responded in 2003 by passing a federal law that asserted the procedure is gruesome, inhumane and never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health. That statement was designed to overcome the health exception to restrictions that the court has demanded in abortion cases.

But federal judges in California, Nebraska and New York said the law was unconstitutional, and three appellate courts agreed. The Supreme Court accepted appeals from California and Nebraska, setting up Wednesday's ruling.

Kennedy's dissent in 2000 was so strong that few court watchers expected him to take a different view of the current case.

Kennedy acknowledged continuing disagreement about the procedure within the medical community. In the past, courts have cited that uncertainty as a reason to allow the disputed procedure.

But Kennedy said, "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice."

He said the more common abortion method, involving dismemberment, is beyond the reach of the federal ban.

While the court upheld the law against a broad attack on its constitutionality, Kennedy said the court could entertain a challenge in which a doctor found it necessary to perform the banned procedure on a patient suffering certain medical complications.

Doctors most often refer to the procedure as a dilation and extraction or an intact dilation and evacuation abortion.

The law allows the procedure to be performed when a woman's life is in jeopardy.

The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bacterialalbatross
Banned
[ *  *  *  * ]
The method banned isn't even practiced anymore.
About 4 or 5 years ago, they started sticking seaweed in the uterus, adminstering hormones to stop growth, and injecting the fetus with a heart stopping med.
The dead fetus then causes the body to self abort, and the fetus is delivered vaginally in a couple of days as a stillborn.

What use is a ban on a procedure no longer even used?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Almtnman
Member Avatar
Administrator
Admin
The partial birth abortion that I have always heard about was more graphic than that; so graphic that I don't want to post it on here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
legitlinda
Member Avatar
Ruler of the Mountain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bacterialalbatross,Apr 18 2007
08:37 AM
The method banned isn't even practiced anymore.
About 4 or 5 years ago, they started sticking seaweed in the uterus, adminstering hormones to stop growth, and injecting the fetus with a heart stopping med.
The dead fetus then causes the body to self abort, and the fetus is delivered vaginally in a couple of days as a stillborn.

What use is a ban on a procedure no longer even used?

Never heard of that procedure...could you provide a link with that info?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Toothless Granny
Advanced Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
How ghastly! How upsetting! How can women do that to their children??? How selfish and cold-hearted our society has become!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
legitlinda
Member Avatar
Ruler of the Mountain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Toothless Granny,Apr 18 2007
09:23 AM
How ghastly! How upsetting! How can women do that to their children??? How selfish and cold-hearted our society has become!

It's hard for me to even think about that procedure...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bsb006
Member Avatar
Ruler of the Mountain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method — dismembering the fetus in the uterus — is available and, indeed, much more common.


This is sickening....now this needs to be stopped.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke
Member Avatar
Duke
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
L Linda,

I was getting ready to post this topic when I found you had.

I am thankful we have people in this country that stays up to date on things this seriously important, thanks for posting it.

Now some comments of mine;

A lot of folks knew that the pro-aborts/death to babies activists knew like a lot of folks did in 2003 that the President of the U.S.A. George W. Bush was going to sign the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" as soon as the U.S. Senate got it to his desk.

The pro-death to babies bunch had activist judges in Ca. ready to rule against it immediately and did.

The practice has in fact continued until now, 4 yrs. later.

While the abortion mills will not slow down their killing of around One Million babies a year, at least now one horrible and totally medically unnecessary act of violence against innocent babies will be against federal law.

The legalized murder/slaughter of babies since 1973's supreme court made it legal is around 44 Million innocent babies.

I thank God and all people that have done and do their best to protect the most innocent.

The pro-life efforts must and does continue,

Duke
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bacterialalbatross
Banned
[ *  *  *  * ]
http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/li...ture_9312ha.asp

"Prostaglandin Abortion

Prostaglandin is a hormone that induces labor. The baby usually dies from the trauma of the delivery. However, if the baby is old enough, it will be born alive. This is called a “complication.” To prevent this, some abortionists use ultrasound to guide them as they inject a “feticide” (a drug that kills the fetus) into the unborn baby’s heart. They then administer prostaglandin and a dead baby is delivered. This type of abortion is used in mid and late term pregnancies."

Seaweed, as with the banned "partial birth" abortion procedure, is also used in this instance to cause the cervix to dialate.

These types of abortions are performed at a hospital, not in clinics, and the criteria to get one is the life of the mother is endangered or something is seriously wrong with the baby. A perfectly healthy woman with a perfectly healthy pregnancy just cannot decide in here 9th month she doesn't want to be a mother.

Tragic, all the way around.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5103a1.htm
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
legitlinda
Member Avatar
Ruler of the Mountain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ video comments on the Victory in the Supreme Court today.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AbidinHim
Member Avatar
Top of the Rung
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
It is so sad and sickening that we even need to make laws against things like this. Common sense,compassion,and conscience should tell folks killing babies these ways is awfully wrong... 3 things society seems to be possessing less of all the time.
God bless the babies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ali
Ruler of the Mountain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It's a sad thing, and I'm sure that it must weigh heavy on a woman's heart for the rest of her life ....no matter what the circumstances are.
In each of my pregnancies I felt my babies move or 'kick' when I was about four months along.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke
Member Avatar
Duke
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
4-18-2007

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Partial-Birth Abortion
by Jennifer Mesko, associate editor

'Decision represents an awakening of the conscience of a nation.'

Pro-life advocates around America are celebrating the “first true judicial victory for the unborn since Roe v. Wade.”

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act -- which Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 -- does not violate a woman’s right to an abortion, as several federal courts had ruled.

The ban takes effect immediately.

“Today, the Supreme Court takes the scalpel out of the hands of abortionists who would brutally and fatally puncture the skulls of babies who are just inches and moments away from birth,” said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics for Focus on the Family Action.

Dr. James C. Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family Action, said: “We thank God that the Supreme Court has affirmed the value of human life by banning the Nazi-esque barbarism that is partial-birth abortion.

“A majority of justices have recognized what most Americans have long known: there is no constitutional right to slay a healthy, nearly born baby by stabbing it in the back of the head and vacuuming out its brains — all without even anesthetizing the child.”

Along with Bush appointees Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, other justices voting to uphold the ban were Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

“The Supreme Court's decision is an affirmation of the progress we have made over the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life,” Bush said in a statement. “We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.”

(*)Democrats had plenty to say as well.

(*) “A lot of us wish that Alito weren't there and (former Justice Sandra Day) O'Connor were there,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said at a press conference today. O’Connor was a crucial swing vote for many of her final years on the bench.

(*)“Reid seems to be more incoherent than ever," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action. "Reid voted in favor of the 2003 federal ban, so he should be thrilled at today's decision."

(*)“If Reid is actually pining for O'Connor, then I would ask him the trial lawyer's famous cross-examination question: ‘Were you lying then or are you lying now?’ ”

U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., called the ruling “the first true judicial victory for the unborn since Roe v. Wade.”

“Thanks to this landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court, we can say life is winning in America,” he said in a statement. “The Supreme Court's decision represents an awakening of the conscience of a nation.”

Notice the (*) I put in and read that then this from my previous post;
Posted on Apr 18 2007, 02:53 PM;
>A lot of folks knew that the pro-aborts/death to babies activists knew like a lot of folks did in 2003 that the President of the U.S.A. George W. Bush was going to sign the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" as soon as the U.S. Senate got it to his desk.

The pro-death to babies bunch had activist judges in Ca. ready to rule against it immediately and did. <end partial quote.


Many of the leftist pro-aborts and maybe some Republicans voted in favor of the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act" playing very silly politics knowing that the activist judges would challenge it and make the ban of no affect.

Evidently they messed up because later the Supreme Court changed and got some different/new members !!!

I thank God, our President, and those hard working folks that got them voted in.

Thanks,

Duke
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sibs
Member Avatar
Ruler of the Hill
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I agree Ron, it is very sad and sickening. Thank God for Pres Bush's court nominations. We can only hope and pray that the tide is finally turning.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke
Member Avatar
Duke
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Below is part of a mass e-mailing from my ® Representative from Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Honorable Phil Gingrey.

It has 2 subjects on it, but the 1st is what we concern ourselves with in this topic.

If you want to you can get on an e-mail list from most of your Local, State, and U.S. politicians more than likely.

Thanks,

Duke



Dear Friend,

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion. This procedure, which takes place in the later trimesters of pregnancy, involves partially delivering an unborn child before performing an abortion to end his or her life. It is a gruesome death, and the Supreme Court’s decision spared countless children from this barbaric method of killing.

As you may know, I practiced medicine as a pro-life OB-GYN physician in Marietta for nearly 30 years before coming to Congress. Accordingly, I was proud to support the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003. Partial-birth abortions are opposed not only by a majority of Congress, but by a majority of Americans. A compassionate society values human life, especially the weakest among us. This week, the Supreme Court confirmed that compassion.

This issue is very close to my heart, as I have two beautiful twin granddaughters who were born at 26 weeks, each weighing a little over two pounds. They are gifts from God, and daily reminders of the sanctity of life.

Sincerely,

Phil Gingrey, M.D.


The results are in… Georgians want a clean funding bill for our troops

In last week’s e-Newsletter, we conducted a survey about funding for our troops. The results are in, and here is what you said:

95% said Congress should NOT include pork-barrel spending – like money for avocado and shrimp farmers – in legislation to fund our troops.

92% said Congress should NOT tie troop funding to withdrawal deadlines in Iraq

Be sure to take this week’s survey on firearm regulation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke
Member Avatar
Duke
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Here is a link to what a partial birth abortion is;

http://www.lifeissues.org/pba/pbadescription.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke
Member Avatar
Duke
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bacterialalbatross,Apr 18 2007
09:37 AM
The method banned isn't even practiced anymore.
About 4 or 5 years ago, they started sticking seaweed in the uterus, adminstering hormones to stop growth, and injecting the fetus with a heart stopping med.
The dead fetus then causes the body to self abort, and the fetus is delivered vaginally in a couple of days as a stillborn.

What use is a ban on a procedure no longer even used?

>The method banned isn't even practiced anymore.<

>What use is a ban on a procedure no longer even used?<

You can't back that up is my thoughts, oh yes, you could say that they are no longer performed legally after the supreme court upheld the ban making it illegal a few days ago.

That would be just a silly play on words though.

Thanks,

Duke
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke
Member Avatar
Duke
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bacterialalbatross,Apr 18 2007
03:07 PM
These types of abortions are performed at a hospital, not in clinics, and the criteria to get one is the life of the mother is endangered or something is seriously wrong with the baby. A perfectly healthy woman with a perfectly healthy pregnancy just cannot decide in here 9th month she doesn't want to be a mother.

The above of course is only a "partial quote" see date to read the whole thing.

>A perfectly healthy woman with a perfectly healthy pregnancy just cannot decide in here 9th month she doesn't want to be a mother.<

Most folks know that late term pregnant girls and women are told to tell them that she is having "thoughts of suicide" in order to get past that.

Always a loophole of some kind for the people that want death for the babies!


This link has this info and more;

http://www.secondlookproject.org/tslp_roereality.html

#1 myth: “High Court Rules Abortions Legal the First 3 Months.”[1]
FACT: Abortion is legal through all 9 months of pregnancy.

In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court ruled that abortion may not be restricted at all in the first trimester.[2] In the second trimester abortion may be regulated only for the mother’s health.[3] After “viability,” abortion may be prohibited except where necessary to preserve the mother’s health. [4]

Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, defined maternal “health” as: “all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age - relevant to the well-being of the patient.”[5]

Thus, abortion is legal -- and cannot be prohibited -- in the 7th, 8th, or 9th months of pregnancy if any of these reasons is invoked.[6]

You be the judge, I suggest a visit to the site to see the full facts on this and other issues as they lay them out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bsb006
Member Avatar
Ruler of the Mountain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Duke (and anyone), I thought you might find this interesting - click here
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke
Member Avatar
Duke
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bsb,

Thanks, I checked out he link and appreciate the info.

Duke
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
greatwhiteelkhunter
Member Avatar
Ruler of the Mountain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
All I have to say is “It’s about freaking time!! THANK GOD!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hick
Unregistered

It is so good to see you back Gary. I hope things are going well for you.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke
Member Avatar
Duke
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I am still behind the woodshed where I sent myself for being too intense with a couple folks, so I will not be debating for about another week, however I do post this in appreciation for all people that stand up for the life of babies.

Thanks,

Duke


For Immediate Release: 5/4/2007

The following statement was issued by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) on Thursday, May 3, 2007, at 6:30 PM EDT. For further information, contact NRLC at 202-626-8820, send e-mail to Legfederal@aol.com, or visit the NRLC website at www.nrlc.org



We are grateful that Senators Chambliss and Isakson have joined the President as well as

Rep. Nathan Deal (R- District 9)

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-District 7)

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-District 1)

Rep. Tom Price (R-District 6)

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-District 8)



Georgia Right to Life & National Right to Life Applauds Blanket Pro-Life

Veto Warning by President Bush



WASHINGTON -- President Bush today sent identical letters to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.), stating flatly, "I will veto any legislation that weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion, or that encourages the destruction of human life at any stage."



Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life, commented, "We appreciate that the President is drawing a bright line -- he will veto any appropriations bill, or any other bill, that would weaken the existing laws against federal funding of abortion or weaken other pro-life policies."



155 members of the House of Representatives and 34 members of the U.S. Senate had already sent the President previously unpublicized letters (dated March 30 and February 1, respectively), urging the President to veto bills that weaken existing pro-life policies, and indicating that they will vote to sustain such vetoes. Those numbers exceed the number required to sustain a veto in either house.



The President's letter comes as congressional appropriations committees are about to begin moving forward with funding bills for the fiscal year that begins October 1. Many important pro-life policies are kept in place by provisions of such appropriations bills, sometimes called "riders," including the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding for abortion (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). Pro-abortion advocacy groups have been pressuring the new Democratic congressional leadership to attack these pro-life riders.



In his letters today, the President wrote, "I am concerned that this year the Congress may consider legislation that could substantially change Federal policies and laws on abortion, and allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life. I am writing to make sure that there is no misunderstanding of my views on these important issues."



President Bush's letter to Speaker Pelosi is posted here.

President Bush's letter to Majority Leader Reid is posted here.

The letter from 155 members of the U.S. House of Representatives to President Bush, pledging to vote to sustain vetoes on pro-life issues, is posted here. The letter from 34 senators is posted here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
legitlinda
Member Avatar
Ruler of the Mountain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well it didn't take them long to try another way. It seems they are hell bent on killing babies.


Cick this link to sign petition.

http://www.aclj.org/




TUESDAY, MAY 08, 2007


Dear Linda,

I need you to take immediate action, and I'm going to get right to the heart of the matter.

YOU MAY DO NOTHING MORE WORTHY TODAY THAN TO SPEAK OUT ON BEHALF OF unborn babies WHO CANNOT SPEAK.

Please take just a few moments to sign our online PETITION IN PROTEST. Raise your voice, along with tens of thousands of other life-honoring ACLJ members, and take your stand today ON BEHALF OF THE UNBORN.

Our message is simple - but firm: ALL HUMAN LIFE IS SACRED. The absolute right to life far outweighs any other rights or freedoms at debate. End of discussion.

We must not allow the brutal horrors of partial-birth abortion to once again become the law of our land. I urge you to stand with me and act today!

Your personal part in this effort is crucial. Put your name on the line in this critical debate and MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! Sign our online Petition in Protest Against the So-Called ''Freedom of Choice'' Act to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees; that's where the congressional debate on this new bill will begin. We've got to stop this pro-abortion bill now, before it gains any momentum in Congress or the press.

As you know, we are facing serious legislation, lobbed at pro-life America by certain members of Congress.

Sens. Clinton, Schumer, and Boxer and Rep. Nadler have introduced the Freedom of Choice Act (H.R. 1964 and S.1173), aimed at undermining the recent Supreme Court decision and thwarting any advance of the pro-life movement.

This legislation is serious indeed. It would not only overturn the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act ... but would also prohibit any future congressional attempts to protect the life of the unborn.

After our three solid years of fighting Gonzales v. Carhart in the trenches, after our spending 12 full weeks in New York fighting to protect the federal ban in the lower court, after helping battle all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States ...

This bill would completely decimate our efforts to eliminate abortion from America.

Our Government Affairs staff is already aggressively at work on this; I have set in motion three lawyers and a senior research team; we are working with members of both the House and the Senate - and I am guiding this entire effort personally.

The ACLU and some in Congress are working fiercely to undo the Supreme Court's ruling and strike a serious blow to the cause of life. But we will match their fervor with the overwhelming strength of our voices through our nationwide Petition in Protest Against the So-Called ''Freedom of Choice'' Act campaign.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, said: ''At a time when the core protections of Roe v. Wade are under attack, FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) is essential to guarantee reproductive freedom in federal law for future generations of American women.''

But what of the guaranteed freedoms of a generation of American women YET UNBORN? Are we to strip them of their most basic freedom: the right to life?

I need your support today! Add your name to our online PETITION IN PROTEST and join me in this pro-life battle ... for the sake of millions of unborn babies - and the future of America.

Thank you.








Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bsb006
Member Avatar
Ruler of the Mountain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I just came here to post this same article - thanks Linda!!!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke
Member Avatar
Duke
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
My wife and I signed the petition and I FWD it too.

My wife and I are among the original contributing members of the ALJC and we praise God for them and other groups that try their best to get the right things done.

Thanks,

Duke
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
« Previous Topic · Politics & Hot Topics · Next Topic »
Add Reply