I can't tell you how upset WOMEN in this country are at the present moment: (Over the SUPREME COURT RULING AGAINST WOMEN ON THE PARTIAL ABORTION BAN, MAKING THE BAN CONSTITUTIONAL). We have allowed the Fascist NEOCONS to rule over us without regard to our health and safety, and when this MEDIEVAL LAW was first put through the United States Congress (GOP CONTROLLED), George W. Bush and his BROWNSHIRT PARTY were in full control of the Congress, no doubt about it. For two of his appointees to come in with only MONTHS OF EXPERIENCE on the Supreme Court and BEGIN AN ATTACK ON THE WOMEN OF THIS COUNTRY is despicable, to say the least. WHEN WILL THIS ATTACK END? WHEN WILL GEORGE BUSH'S LIES BE ACCOUNTED FOR? As we all well know, this law was pushed through the Congress of the United States in 2003 as we were being misled (much evidence to prove it, also) by George Bush's TOTAL LIES to lead us into a war of destruction, using "dirty bombs," DEPLETED URANIUM, that cause irreparable harm and "mutated birth defects" to Iraqi children, and have caused women Iraq veterans to miscarry, men Iraq veterans to seek vasectomies, and many, many cases of what is termed "Gulf War Syndrome."

If we do not heed the call to "arms" soon, and I mean soon, to fight these "fascists," who have now taken over our "judicial and court systems at the HIGHEST LEVELS," then we will see more MISERY IN FUTURE YEARS than we are prepared to deal with.

GEORGE W. BUSH "LIED" TO THE CONGRESS OF THESE UNITED STATES about supposed uranium sales to Iraq from Niger in order to FALSELY AND "INTENTIONALLY" begin a war with Iraq. I will suggest this much to any interested person who is truly concerned about the FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY, and that is that you read all the information posted by me and others on this blog having to do with the POISON DUST that has deformed and mutated almost a whole generation of children in Iraq, and this POISON DUST comes from the dirty bombs that we have dropped for YEARS upon the MIDDLE EAST, particularly in Iraq. Then ask yourselves, WHAT IS THE "PURPOSE" OF GEORGE W. BUSH'S "WAR ON WOMEN?" And I will tell you the answer right now in a NUTSHELL. He needs women to supply him more soldiers for his WARS OF THE 21ST CENTURY, just as HITLER NEEDED GERMAN WOMEN TO BEAR CHILDREN FOR THE STATE, and he needs more SUBJECTS (within his kingdom) to PERSECUTE AND USE AS SCAPEGOATS, so he is willing to make criminals out of women who have no other choice but to subject themselves to his whims (mostly based upon lies).

George W. Bush sees NO REASON for stem cell research. He sees no reason for women to be protected by their doctors should a SOUND MEDICAL REASON be given for the termination of a pregnancy after the first trimester. HE SEES NO REASON EVEN FOR BIRTH CONTROL OR "CONDOMS" OR ANYTHING ELSE that makes perfect sense. He is HELL BENT on making CRIMINALS OUT OF EVERY SUBJECT THAT HE HAS IN THIS COUNTRY, and that is exactly what his COURT now has done. They have made it a criminal offense (note that these lawsuits were brought by "GONZALES") for WOMEN )and THEIR DOCTOR, who are more easily PUSHED AROUND, than are men. The purpose? To subject them to FEAR of their own government, EVEN WHEN IT MEANS PROTECTING THEIR OWN HEALTH, which may be at risk if they do not terminate a pregnancy. I urge you to read carefully the conditions that women may be at a BIG RISK for, including certain forms of cancer, or of losing their lives over, or further damaging their bodies, because his HANDPICKED BROWNSHIRT JUSTICES have failed to CARE about inserting language into this MEDIEVAL PATRIARCHAL PIECE OF LEGISLATION FOR AN EXCEPTION TO "PROTECT THE LIFE OR HEALTH OF THE MOTHER," which is exactly what they have done today. "THEY HAVE IGNORED BOTH THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER AND THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER, (UNPRECEDENTED SUPREME COURT BEHAVIOR). And folks, FRANKLY THEY DON'T GIVE A DAMNED; THAT IS "OBVIOUS." they want more criminals and they want them NOW. They are sorry excuses for JUDGES, AND THEY HAVE NOW OVERRULED ALL OTHER FEDERAL DECISIONS ON THIS MATTER BEFORE THEM DECLARING THIS PIECE OF CRAP LEGISLATION "UNCONSITUTIONAL."

I URGE YOU TO GO BACK AND READ ABOUT THE COMSTOCK LAWS, which were on the books for years after they were developed, coming from the 19th century, and just what they were designed to do. DURING THE 19TH AND PART OF THE 20TH CENTURIES, the NUMBER 1 CAUSE OF DEATH AMONG WOMEN WAS (historically) childbirth. Then I ask you to look at the "monsters that have been created" by exposure to the bombs (depleted uranium) that George Bush AND his father have dropped upon the Middle East, and then ask yourself? WHO ARE THE "TRUE MURDERERS" AND GENOCIDAL MANIACS within this country? Is it WOMEN, or is it GEORGE W. BUSH AND HIS BAND OF GOVERNMENTAL THUGS?

Majority Leader Hoyer?s Statement on Supreme Court?s Ruling in Abortion Procedure Case

WASHINGTON, DC ? House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer issued the following statement today in response to the United States Supreme Court?s decision upholding a nationwide ban on partial-birth abortion.

I have high regard for the Supreme Court. However, I am deeply disappointed by the Court?s decision today to uphold a federal law restricting a woman's right to choose and to protect her health.

The Court's decision today is nothing less than a retreat from well-established Court precedent. The so-called partial-birth-abortion ban, for example, provides no exception if a woman's health is in danger or if a doctor determines that the banned procedure is the safest for a woman's health. Instead, the law subjects doctors to criminal penalty if they perform the banned procedure.

?When the Republican-controlled Congress adopted the law that was upheld today, it was clear to observers that the measure was not about enacting sound public policy but scoring political points. The failure of the measure to include even a health exception for a woman facing the most difficult crisis of her life underscored this point, which is why six federal courts that considered the law determined that it was unconstitutional.

In the days ahead, Americans will come to understand the full implications of today?s decision. But it is clear that today's decision breaks with decades of sound constitutional jurisprudence.

UPON THIS "SUBJECT" YOU WILL NO LONGER HEAR "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" FROM ME, BUT ONLY THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER AND AN OUTRAGE AT WHAT EVEN THE GOOD POLITICIANS OF THIS COUNTRY have allowed to happen to women and their health under the BUSH REIGN OF TERROR.

JUSTICES TO WOMEN: DROP DEAD
RESPONSES BY WOMEN'S MOVEMENTS
POET NIKKI GIOVANNI: WE ARE ALL VIRGINIA TECH

Now we see why the fight over the nomination of Supreme Court Justices
mattered so much. The Bush Majority was able to outlaw a reproductive
health procedure potentially affecting millions of women. Ironic isn't
that this Administration which has railed against politicizing Judges
and Judges making law is responsible for this rollback of women's rights.
Ironic or predictable?

BUSH COURT ERODES WOMEN'S RIGHTS: Upholds federal abortion ban

Lyle Denniston reports:

Dividing 5-4, the Supreme Court on Wednesday gave a sweeping and
only-barely-qualified victory to the federal government and to other
opponents of abortion, upholding the 2003 law that banned what are
often called "partial-birth abortions." Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote
for the majority in the first-ever decision by the Court to uphold a
total ban on a specific abortion procedure -- prompting the dissenters to
argue that the Court was walking away from the defense of abortion
rights that it had made since the original Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
Roe v. Wade was not overturned, as some filings before the Court had
urged.

The Court said that it was upholding the law as written --that is,
its facial language. It said that the lawsuits challenging the law should
not have been allowed in court "in the first instance." The proper way
to make a challenge, if an abortion ban is claimed to harm a woman's
right to abortion, is through an as-applied claim, Kennedy wrote. His
opinion said that courts could consider such claims "in discrete and
well-defined instances" where "a condition has or is likely to occur in
which the procedure prohibited by the Act must be used."

Kennedy said the Court was assuming that the federal ban would be
unconstitutional "if it subjected women to significant health risks." He
added, however, that "safe medical options are available." His opinion
noted that the Bush Administration "has acknowledged that pre-enforcement,
as-applied challenges to the Act can be maintained."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking out in the courtroom for the
dissenters, called the ruling "an alarming decision" that refuses "to take
seriously" the Court's 1992 decisions reaffirming most of Roe v. Wade
and its 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart striking down a state
partial-birth abortion law.

Ginsburg, in a lengthy statement, said "the Court's opinion 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. For the first time since Roe, the Court
blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman's health."
She said the federal ban "and the Court's defense of it cannot be
understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared
again and again by this Court -- and with increasing comprehension of
its centrality to women's lives. A decision of the character the Court
makes today should not have staying power."


MS MAGAZINE EXPLAINS THE IMPACT

If the abortion procedure ban is found to be constitutional, not only
would it prohibit a specific late-term procedure?intact dilation and
extraction (D & X) --but could possibly outlaw every abortion procedure
performed after 12 weeks of pregnancy (the first trimester), including
the more common dilation and evacuation (D & E) method. This could have
dramatic consequences, since 143,000 American women annually have
abortions during their second or third trimester.

It would be particularly hard on women awaiting the results of
amniocentesis, the common diagnostic tool for severe birth defects, which is
usually administered during the 15th to 18th weeks of pregnancy. If the
ban is judged constitutional, there may be no legal way to terminate
certain pregnancies, no matter how grave the birth defect discovered.

The ban would also prevent doctors from providing a D & X procedure in
certain circumstances when it's considered the safer option, such as
cases involving preeclampsia or some cancers. As Eve Gartner, lead
counsel for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, explained to the
justices, "In some cases -- [it] averts uterine perforation, it averts the
spread of sepsis or infection; it [potentially] averts the spread
of malignant cancer throughout the woman's body. This Court has never
recognized a state interest that was sufficient to trump the woman's
interest in her health.

RESPONSE FROM National Organization of Women

Not since Bush v. Gore has the Supreme Court made such a political
decision, or one that so completely distorts the law and disregards the
U.S. Constitution.

The law is so vaguely written that it may ban the most common abortion
procedure used after 12 weeks of pregnancy, and there is no exception
to allow its use if the woman's health is in serious danger. The joint ruling in
Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood is a major step in the
campaign to outlaw all abortions, first by chipping away at and then by
fully overturning Roe v. Wade.

RESPONSE BY NARAL

"Today's decision shows Bush's appointees have moved the Court in a
direction that could further undermine Roe v. Wade and protections for
women's health. The door is now open for politicians like George W. Bush
to interfere even more in our personal, private medical decisions. The
Court has given anti-choice state lawmakers the green light to open the
flood gates and launch additional attacks on safe, legal abortion,
without any regard for women's health.

"The bottom line is clear: elections matter. An anti-choice Congress
and an anti-choice president pushed this ban all the way to the Supreme
Court. In fact, the same politicians behind this abortion ban also
block stem-cell research and interfered in the Terri Schiavo
case. We need to elect more pro-choice members of Congress and a
president who will stand up for-not attack-our fundamental values of freedom
and privacy.

Statement of Eleanor Smeal, President, Feminist Majority

In upholding the Bush Administration's abortion ban in Gonzales v.
Carhart, the Bush-stacked majority of the U.S. Supreme Court showed its
true colors: that it does not care about the health, well-being, and
safety of American women. In this first decision on abortion of the newly
constituted majority, without Sandra Day O'Connor, Bush appointees John
Roberts and Samuel Alito did what they were put on the Court to
do-- strike a blow against women's fundamental right to choose abortion.

WOMEN IN AUSTIN WILL "TAKE A STAND"

Dear Pro-Choice Texan:

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold the
Federal Abortion Ban. The ban provides no exception to protect a
woman's health, and the decision marks a major step backward for
women's health throughout the United States, especially in
states like Texas where anti-choice politicians routinely play
politics with women's health. The Supreme Court struck down an
almost identical state law as unconstitutional in 2000, and
every federal court to hear a challenge to this first-ever
federal ban on abortion declared it unconstitutional. Until
today.

Here in Texas we're very concerned this decision will
essentially give a "green-light" to anti-choice lawmakers
considering similar dangerous and divisive attacks on women's
health, including Rep. Chisum's near-total abortion ban (HB
175), which is currently being considered in the Texas House of
Representatives.

That's why we're organizing an Emergency Demonstration for
Women's Health this Thursday, April 19 from 5-6 pm on the south
side of the Capitol (11th & Congress).

Please join supporters of women's health, freedom and privacy to
raise awareness about this landmark setback which endangers
women's health and urge Texas lawmakers to abandon similar
dangerous and divisive anti-choice measures, which are scheduled
to advance in the Texas House this week.

What: Emergency Demonstration of Support for Women's Health in
Texas
When: Thursday, April 19, 5-6 pm
Where: South side of the Capitol on 11th at Congress
Why: To show our lawmakers Texans want women's health, freedom
and privacy to be upheld.

This is our last opportunity to stop several dangerous and
divisive anti-choice bills before they hit the House floor.

Your help is vital in fighting anti-choice legislation and
ensuring that Texas families have the tools to prevent
unintended pregnancies and therefore reduce the need for
abortion, while keeping reproductive health choices safe and
legal in Texas.

Thank you for your action today. We hope to see you at the
capitol tomorrow!

Laurie Felker Jones
--------------------------------------------------

AS FOR ME "PERSONALLY," I would like to know what Sandra Day O'Conner has to say about this now, and you can "BET ON IT," that I will be voting for a WOMAN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008