>>Can't really say 8 years of nothing but failure (I know, you didn't say that exactly). There were some admirable accomplishments, and some 'accomplishments' that I personally consider complete failures setting this country back, not forwards.
>>
>>New game: can you point out the utter failures and the actual accomplishments (yes there are some) ? :o) I will get the ball rolling: In the first section, items 1-7 go into the utter failure column...
>>
>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163304/posts
>>
>>SNIP
>>
>>>And you still haven't answered my question, beyond an airy 'oh...the "surge".' Or, if you're standing on that answer then you're over exaggeratting the whole 'tried to make him fail for years'. 8 years of failure and that's the only example you got to back your claim? The 'surge'?? [snort] [giggle] Please tell me you have something better than that.....
>
>
>Tracy,
>
>You included partial birth abortion in that list. Are you serious? If I wring a kittens neck because I don't want them, I go to jail, but its okay to kill a baby during birth?
>Please tell me I misunderstood...

When the mother's health is at risk, I feel it is an option that should be available. I took the list to refer to the ban of 2003 which overturned previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women providing an exception for the health of the mother. Back in 2000, a state's partial birth abortion law was struck down by the Supreme Court because it did not take the mother's health into consideration. The law of 2003 changed that. There is no exemption if the health of a woman is at risk, only her life itself during the pregnancy itself. If the pregnancy itself would not cause immediate death, then the abortion is prohibited by law. That is my undertanding of the 2003 ban.