May he burn in hell.

freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=222469&Disp=2#C2

New York governor Andrew Cuomo ... signed the [Reproductive Health No Birthrights] Act into law and then celebrated ... the legal mass killings of babies up to the moment of birth ... In addition, the new [law Homicidal Anarchy purportedly] removes protections for babies born alive after an abortion – meaning they could be left to die after birth.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108–105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531, PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late termination of pregnancy called "partial-birth abortion,"

No Federal Law gives anyone the "right to choose" that babies born alive here (as U.S. citizens or not) don't have a right to life or legal protections unless the mother and Pro-Abortionists want them to live and have rights. Quite the contrary, New Yorkers.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108–105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531, PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late termination of pregnancy called "partial-birth abortion,"

I don't think so.

"Partial Birth Abortion Fiasco: Saved Not One

"Ending partial-birth abortion... does not save a single human life."

- Dr. James Dobson

Scores of pro-life leaders and groups (see their names below) have condemned Gonzales v. Carhart, the U.S. Supreme Court's brutally-wicked ruling upholding the morally bankrupt partial-birth abortion "ban." Tragically, other pro-life leaders and groups (see them also) still support this fraudulent ban and ruling which is a virtual manual on how to perform late-term abortions. Brace yourself for American RTL's summary of the PBA fiasco..."

WARNING: GRAPHIC VIOLENCE AGAINST INFANTS EXPRESSED:

"...American RTL is working to inform pro-lifers so they will not be deceived into funding a "ban" that "does not save a single human life."

•PBA Ruling Excerpts: From the official online text, at supremecourt.gov, of their Gonzales v. Carhart opinion, Justices Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito agree, as:

- on pages 21-22, regarding a living child, "the removal of a small portion ['say, an arm or leg,'] of the fetus is not prohibited." [2017 Update (video below): Abortionist In undercover sting a Planned Parenthood abortionist admits that this is exactly how they kill that baby. We "pull off a leg".]

- on page 17, that to actually violate this regulation, "requires the fetus to be delivered 'until… any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother.'"

- however, on page 18, "If a living fetus is delivered past the critical point [the bellybutton] by accident or inadvertence [and then killed by the abortionist performing a textbook partial-birth abortion, then] no crime has occurred,"

- and on page 24 (regarding a situation in which the abortionist had prepared the mother with laminaria to open the cervix), there would be no violation for performing an actual partial-birth abortion, as the justices suggest, if the mother happened to be over "dilate[d]."

- on page 30, the justices hope that abortionists, "may find different and less shocking methods to abort [kill] the fetus..."

- while on page 33, speaking of killing "late-term" children, these justices say that abortionists should use "reasonable alternative procedures"

- such as, on pages 4-6, by their own descriptions of methods to kill the baby, that are still "legal", include "ripping it apart," "dismemberment," "a leg might be ripped off the fetus," "friction causes the fetus to tear apart," "10 to 15 passes with the forceps," "evacuating the fetus piece by piece."

- on page 34, the Justices actually suggest other ways for an abortionist to kill the same, late-term fully-intact child, such as "an injection that kills the fetus is an alternative..."

- and on page 36, this Republican majority says that the authority for this "regulation," comes from "the Commerce Clause," as though children were inventory or a crop to be harvested.

[ATKHWDI: They are!! http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=114869 / https://jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Federal%20Reserve% 20Scam/birth_certificates.htm ]

Thus pro-life leaders who initially praised this opinion later condemned it as immoral (see below) for it is a virtual late-term abortion manual, making the Gonzales v. Carhart PBA ruling more brutally wicked than Roe v. Wade itself.

•PBA Ruling Analysis: Read Colorado RTL's PBA Ban Analysis which first exposed the brutality and wickedness of the U.S. Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart opinion which implements a four-inch variation on a standard partial-birth abortion, "permitting" the abortionist to pull the same baby out to the navel, rather than to the neck, before killing it.

•Ten Years Later Undercover Video Horrificially Confirms ARTL's Warning: The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) in 2017 released a 3-minute video of Stacy De- Lin, director, Planned Parenthood of New York City, saying, "We certainly do intact D&Es" [dilation and extraction], that is, removing the baby whole, which, as with a partial-birth abortion, would typically mean that the baby is still alive. Ann Schutt-Aine, director, Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast explains how to then kill that living intact baby while complying with National RTL's brutally wicked PBA law. In Aine's words, "I might ask for a second set of forceps to hold the body at the cervix, and pull off a leg, or two, so it's not PBA", exactly as Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito suggested (see red excerpts above)...."

Full article: http://americanrtl.org/partial-birth-abortion-ban-fiasco-saved- not-one

See also Judge Roy Moore Condemns Partial Birth Abortion Ruling

http://americanrtl.org/judge-roy-moore-condemns-the-partial-birth-abortion- ruling

“And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.” Leviticus 18:21 (KJV)

What the Bible Says About Abortion [good read]

http://americanrtl.org/what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion

Michael Hoffman: America is under Talmudic Law Not Sharia Law

"...the fact that Talmudic law has ALREADY taken over large segments of America’s judicial systems is totally ignored.

Hoffman writes:

“The Babylonian Talmud is indeed a body of law. . . . The source of their binding law codes which micromanage the lives of millions of adherents, is the Talmud of Babylon, that supposed insipid series of mere ‘debates.’”

“The Sanhedrin volumes cover capital punishment and other forms of penal law, including the eerie concept of the rodef (‘pursuer’). It is often bragged that the religion of the Talmud has suspended enforcement of the death penalty. Hence, gentiles don’t have to fear that worshippers of Jesus Christ will be executed for avodah zarah (idolatry), under the Noahide laws; that’s the cover story. The truth is that while the beth din (rabbinic court) does not formally, and as a matter of public action, issue death penalties, they do permit the preemptive execution of a person designated a rodef (‘pursuer’).

“We are dealing here with lawyers. Therefore, it is necessary to be cognizant of the myriad escape clauses that are native to the Talmudic gestalt. Nowadays no rabbinic court sentences anyone to death? That’s true. Hence, people are murdered without trial. The most notorious recent case is that of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, assassinated in 1995 by Yigal Amir, a Talmud student, because Rabin was earnestly endeavoring to make peace with the Palestinians. Amir invoked . . . the rabbinic law governing a pursuer. Rabin was considered by the Israeli-colonialist settler movement to be a rodef, and hence he was summarily murdered as a preventive act. This is a feature of the Talmudic law governing the ‘pursuer.’ It was conveyed to George W. Bush that the nation of Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a pursuer, and a first strike aggressive war was launched, in accordance with the Talmud, while Protestant fundamentalists and papalist neocons ran about screeching, ‘Beware, Sharia law is nearly here!’

“Pursuers come in all shapes and sizes. They can even be Judaic children. In 1973 Americans were shocked and deeply disturbed when the Supreme Court not only legalized abortion at 12 or 16 weeks' gestation — the Court, in conformity with the Talmud, legalized abortion on demand at any time during the pregnancy, including a few minutes before the baby is born. This abominable crime against the innocent is permissible in those lands where the Talmud exerts dominion.

“The relevant halacha is found in the uncensored text of the Talmud Bavli (‘Bavli’ denotes Babylon), in Sanhedrin 72b, where a mother believes her unborn baby is endangering her life by ‘pursuing’ her. According to the Talmud, this unborn infant rodef can be eliminated at any time during the pregnancy, except when the mother is actually giving birth and the head of the child becomes visible.

“‘Before the baby is born, it is not considered a living soul, and it is therefore not subject to the halakhot (law) of murder.’ — Koren Talmud Bavli: Sanhedrin Part Two (Jerusalem, 2017), p. 155.

“Right wing campaigners against the alleged imminent imposition of Sharia law announce that they are defending the ‘Constitution against Islam.’ We have never seen a case where Islamic law profoundly influenced members of the Supreme Court. We have, however, observed repeated Talmudic influence over how the court interprets the Constitution in the modern era. Roe v. Wade is one example. Another is the ‘discovery’ of a Constitutional right to legalize the marriage of sodomites. It goes without saying that the Founders envisioned no such right, just as the Bible made no allowance for a usurping Talmud.

“In the religion that is directed by the Talmud, there is no legislature. All laws are made by judicial decision. It just so happens that this is how much of the supreme law of the land is made in America. Another name for ‘activist judge’ is Talmudic judge.

“Our nation is under Talmudic law, not Sharia, though immense troops of Protestant and Catholic ignoramuses display their cluelessness as they crusade with intense fervor against a non-existent menace, while oblivious to the cancer eating at the bowels of our nation.”

See Hoffman’s complete column here:

https://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2017/10/america-is-under-talmudic-law- not.html

while the beth din (rabbinic court) does not formally, and as a matter of public action, issue death penalties, they do permit the preemptive execution of a person designated a rodef (‘pursuer’). ...

“Pursuers come in all shapes and sizes. They can even be Judaic children. In 1973 Americans were shocked and deeply disturbed when the Supreme Court not only legalized abortion at 12 or 16 weeks' gestation — the Court, in conformity with the Talmud, legalized abortion on demand at any time during the pregnancy, including a few minutes before the baby is born. This abominable crime against the innocent is permissible in those lands where the Talmud exerts dominion.

Isaiah 24Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD of hosts, O my people that dwellest in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrian: he shall smite thee with a rod, and shall lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt.

https://biblehub.com/isaiah/10-24.htm

https://biblehub.com/kjv/isaiah/10.htm

Exodus 1

Oppression by a New Pharaoh

8Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. 9And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: 10Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land. 11Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses. 12But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel. 13And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour: 14And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour

Pharoah Orders Male Children Killed

15And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: 16And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. 17But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. 18And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? 19And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. 20Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. 21And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. 22And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.

https://biblehub.com/kjv/exodus/1.htm

3 OB/GYNs Tell the Truth About 3rd Trimester Abortions—“the child can almost always be delivered safely”

stateofthenation2012.com/? p=114898

[IN NO MEDICAL SITUATION EVER IS IT NECESSARY TO MURDER THE CHILD IN THE THIRD TRIMESTER]

3 OB/GYNs Tell the Truth About 3rd Trimester Abortions—“the child can almost always be delivered safely”

stateofthenation2012.com/?p=114898

[IN NO MEDICAL SITUATION EVER IS IT NECESSARY TO MURDER THE CHILD IN THE THIRD TRIMESTER]

Thank you for posting that documentation of their statements:

Thank you. I ran across and commented a few hours ago on an abortion post by Uncle Bill. He included a picture I also have had a copy of for years and years. It came from the abortiontv site. I don't know if the site still exists. The picture shows a black trash-bag-lined garbage can filled to the top with what appear to be full-term aborted babies. If I remember correctly that was the fiendish product of one morning in one abortion clinic in America. The Angels must weep. I went to bed on that picture. I woke up with my heart still aching. I feel so ashamed. I should have done more. This country has a real whupping coming. We all should be on our knees begging for mercy. I don't feel like I deserve. But there are a lot of innocent children in this country and I fear for them.

We need a bill that authorizes killing of a state executive at the moment of signing a repugnant piece of legislation.

Kyrie Eleison | Worship Song from the Vineyard [5 minute YouTube w/Lyrics] Written by: Ted Kim / Cindy Rethmeier

Kyrie Eleison

Verse 1:
For the things we’ve done and left undone
For the ways we’ve wandered from your heart
Forgive us, we pray
Forgive us, we pray

Verse 2:
For the idols we put on Your throne
For the loves we choose above Your own
Forgive us, we pray
Forgive us, we pray

Chorus:
Lord have mercy
Christ have mercy
Lord have mercy on us, on us

Verse 3:
For the lies that we clutch to our chests
For the fear that wants to steal our breath
Forgive us, we pray
And give us Your grace

Bridge:
Forgiving God, forgiving us
Forgiving God, forgiving us
Forgiving God, forgiving us
Forgiving God, forgiving us

There is one answer to the question of whether we obey man's law or God's law, and we all know it. When we go along to get along with the satanists running the UNITED STATES we become their proxies and accomplices.

Roe v. Wade

Cross-referencing 4um Title: 35 Mind Blowing Facts About America That Previous Generations Of Americans Never Would Have Believed | A comment at theeconomiccollapseblog.com URL Source:

"Roe v Wade is NOT federal law. Abortion is a State issue since it is NOT in the Constitution."

Letting Go of Roe | by Benjamin Wittes | theatlantic.com | January/February 2005 issue

it is a special kind of pathology that would rather demand a loyalty oath to a weak and unstable Court decision

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia | Excerpts:

As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. ... In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the [4um Ref. Insert: Unconstitutional, imo,] Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. However, it held that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother. ... At the point of viability [i.e. capability of surviving or living], ... the state's interest in "potential life" would become compelling, and the state could regulate abortion to protect "potential life." At that point, the state could even forbid abortion so long as it made an exception to preserve the life or health of the mother. The Court added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest – not women's rights in general.

During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that the government could place no restriction on a woman's ability to choose to abort a pregnancy other than minimal medical safeguards such as requiring a licensed physician to perform the procedure. From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks [from abortion] to the mother's health gave the state a compelling interest, and that it could enact medical regulations on the procedure so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health. Since the beginning of the third trimester was normally considered [then] to be the point at which a fetus became viable under the level of medical science available in the early 1970s, the Court ruled that during the third trimester the state had a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life, and could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health. The Court concluded that Texas's abortion statutes were unconstitutional, and struck them down: "A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage [i.e. as if human life begins at conception and should be protected from "elective"/voluntary abortions of convenience at all stages of pregnancy] and without recognition of the other interests involved [i.e. the Physician-Abortionist's 'Right to Work interests'], is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

William Saletan wrote, "Blackmun's [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference." Benjamin Wittes has written that Roe "disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply." And Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who "loved Roe's author like a grandfather," wrote: "As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. ... Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms." The assertion that the Supreme Court was making a legislative decision is often repeated by opponents of the ruling.

More on Abortion issues:

4um Title: Virginia Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam Advocates Post-Birth Abortion

Remember, folks: a [U.S. border] wall is an “immorality” [says Nancy Pelosi & the Commiecrats] but “aborting” a baby post-birth is a woman’s sacred right! [Sarcasm]

Tucker: Federal courts the most decayed institution of all - YouTube, 11.25 minutes | Published on Feb 21, 2018 by Fox News

Under the last two administrations, the courts have increasingly come to view themselves, not as interpreters of the law, but as the country's main policymakers. ... arguing that the Constitution does not contain the right to keep and bear arms but does contain a right to abortion is lying, not a matter of interpretation -- dishonesty

UK Supreme Court Hears Brexit Prorogation Case! - YouTube

Transcript excerpts: If the judges want to involve themselves in politics, then they become politicians and must be held accountable at the ballot box just like ... members of the legislature and just like mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners as part of the executive.

Born-Alive Infants Protection Act - Wikipedia

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 ("BAIPA" Pub.L. 107–207, 116 Stat. 926, enacted August 5, 2002, 1 U.S.C. § 8) is an Act of Congress. It extends legal protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion. It was signed by President George W. Bush. ... Defines a "Born alive infant" as "Person, human being, Child, Individual". Acknowledges human rights of any child born within the United States. "Born Alive" is defined as the complete expulsion of an infant at any stage of development that has a heartbeat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, breath, or voluntary muscle movement, no matter if the umbilical cord has been cut or if the expulsion of the infant was natural, induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia

(Pub.L. 108–105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531, PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late termination of pregnancy called "partial-birth abortion", referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction. Under this law, any physician "who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both". The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the [2007] U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban -- Misconceptions and Realities | By Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director - National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) | nrlc.org | November 5, 2003

In federal (and most state) law, a "live BIRTH" occurs when the baby is (1) all the way outside the mother, even if the cord is still attached, and (2) displays any respiration, heartbeat, or movement of voluntary muscles. See the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection law enacted in 2002

if the baby draws breath it is a LIVE BIRTH. ... Even under the doctrine of Roe v. Wade, once outside the mother, a human who shows any signs of life is a "person" protected by law and the Constitution, whether he or she lives for five minutes or 100 years.

NOTE: Legally, there is NO SUCH THING as a "fetus" who is all the way outside the mother and alive. Under federal law (and most state law), even if pre-viable, this is a pre-mature "infant," and also a "person," a "human being," and a "child."

at the stages that most partial-birth abortions are performed, the great majority of babies would be "live births" if they were expelled by spontaneous premature labor, and many would be long-term survivors.

many of the claims of medical "necessity" for partial-birth abortion, on closer examination, turn out to involve not any bona fide risk to a mother's physical health, but rather, [is] really a euphemism for pre-natal euthanasia.

Partial-Birth Abortion: Recent Developments in the Law - EveryCRSReport.com

Senator Santorum insisted that congressional hearings and expert testimony demonstrate "that a partial birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of the mother, poses significant health risks to the woman, and is outside the standard of medical care." [Insert: 4um Ref. w/Pic containing Physician statements ; + Fox News article w/Video interview of Dr. Hamada, OB-GYN: 'Absolutely no reason' to kill a baby in the third trimester.]

The Rutherford Institute :: A Hollow Victory: A Legal Analysis of Gonzales v. Carhart | April 24, 2007

On April 18, 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in what is sure to be considered the most important decision regarding abortion since the infamous Roe v. Wade. In Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld Congress' ban of the procedure widely known as "partial-birth abortion." ... The parties who challenged the federal Act raised three major arguments [vagueness, undue burden and inconsistent with precedents]. ... Writing for the majority of the Court, Justice Kennedy rejected all of these arguments and upheld the federal law. ... Two other Justices issued opinions in this case. Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, with which Justice Scalia joined. Justice Thomas stated simply that while the majority opinion represents an accurate application of current abortion jurisprudence, said jurisprudence, including Roe v. Wade, has no basis in the Constitution. ... The battle for the unborn exemplifies the tragedy that can result from the principle of stare decisis when the Supreme Court just gets it wrong. ... As Justices Thomas and Scalia [insist], the Constitution simply does not contain a right to have an abortion. Thus, the judicial branch, having created this right from whole cloth, is left to expound and interpret it. [Note: " This is the moral hazard of judicial supremacy – the notion that, at any moment, any judge can shut down a [law or] policy as if he had a presidential veto pen and have that opinion be self-executing against legitimate powers of other branches of government." -- Daniel Horowitz @ a conservativereview.com article.]

Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act - Wikipedia

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (also colloquially known as Micah's Law) is a congressional bill that would, in most cases, make it unlawful to perform an abortion if the estimated post-fertilization age of a fetus is 20 weeks or more. The bill is based upon the assertion is that a fetus is capable of feeling pain during an abortion at and after that point in a pregnancy.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act was first introduced in Congress in 2013. It successfully passed the House of Representatives in 2013, 2015, and 2017. The bill has twice received a majority of votes in the Senate, but has failed to reach the 60 votes required to break a filibuster.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act has been become known as Micah's Law because of Micah Pickering, a boy from Iowa who was born prematurely at 22 weeks' gestation in 2012 and survived

‘A highly subsidised green energy market is not a free market’ - YouTube, 15.5 minutes | Published on Sep 17, 2019 by Sky News Australia

The Australian’s Jennifer Oriel [speaks in the first 2.75 minutes of the interview about changing her once Feminist opinion about Abortion because of scientific research on fetal pain capability.]