The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Congress’ ban on a gruesome abortion procedure. The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed in 2003 is not prohibited by the Constitution. The opponents of the act “have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

Abortion rights groups claim that the partial birth abortion is sometimes the safest procedure for a woman. Dr. Kenneth Killborn, co-chair of Practicing American Physicians for Abortion (PAPA), defended the procedure. “If we were to do the dilation and extraction and pull the fetus out without crushing its skull there’s a chance it might live,” Killborn said. “Even if the woman were not required to take responsibility for the resulting child, she would still be burdened with the knowledge that she was a mother. This could be traumatic and damaging to her health. That’s why we must have a ‘health of the mother’ exception to any proposed limit to the right to an abortion.”

Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) complained about the Court’s ruling. “These judges aren’t doctors,” Gartner said. “They aren’t competent to overrule 30 years of Supreme Court precedents validating the medical necessity of this procedure.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was one of the four dissenting votes on the Court saying that the ruling “deviated from previous Supreme Court decisions” on abortion and “rides roughshod over ‘states rights’ by tolerating, indeed applauding, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper by the doctors performing it.”

In 2000, prior to the addition of Bush appointees John Roberts and Samuel Alito, the court struck down a state ban on partial-birth abortions. Writing for a 5-4 majority then, Justice Breyer said the law imposed an undue burden on a woman’s right to make an abortion decision. “Some women might prefer to have the fetus partially extracted before having it dismembered,” Breyer wrote. “They should not be forced to have it torn apart while fully inside the womb or have to bear the risk of a live birth. As Justice Blackmun wrote in the original Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, ‘a woman must not be forced to become a mother, she must be free to dispose of the tissues her body has created in any manner that seems most conducive to her well-being or personal preferences.’”

Eager to use the ruling to fuel her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) pounced on the news. “This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy,” Clinton asserted. “As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, there are penumbras and emanations from the Constitution that explicitly justify this medically essential procedure for ending late term pregnancies. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. I promise that when I am president steps will be taken to neutralize the influence of these men and their ilk or I will have them replaced on the Court.”

Edwards Deflects Criticism of His $400 Hair Cuts

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards expressed befuddlement at criticism of his expensive haircuts. “I don’t know what the big deal is,” Edwards said. “Everybody gets a haircut now and then. They can’t expect me to put up with being shaggy and disheveled. That may be okay for some, like Kucinich or Clinton, but not for me.”

Campaign expenditure reports indicate that Edwards typically pays around $400 per trim.

Edwards conceded that this “might be a bit more than the average guy pays, but the average guy isn’t running for president and doesn’t have to look great 24/7.”

Asked how he thought the news of his pricy hair jobs would affect his campaign, Edwards said, “Whether it’s confronting a foreign crisis or cracking down on Congress, the better looking man has a distinct advantage. I think the American people know this and understand how important it is for their president to look good.”

Edwards contended that if he, rather than the “goofy looking Kerry” had headed the 2004 Democratic ticket, Bush would have been defeated. “Senator Kerry may have been a Vietnam War hero and all, but he looked like that zombie from the Adam’s Family,” Edwards said. “That alone probably cost us 5 or 6 million votes.”

Federal Election Commission records show Edwards’ campaign also spent $250 in services from Designworks Salon in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 in services from the Pink Sapphire in Manchester, New Hampshire for “massages and other services.” Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz said those services were legitimate campaign expenditures to prepare Edwards for media appearances. “Those who have leapt to criticize this man for caring about how he looks should check out the results on ‘You Tube’ before rendering judgment.” The web site url for the Edwards “You Tube” exposition is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q.

Syria to Launch “Made by a Muslim” Brand Name

A group of Islamic businessmen meeting in Damascus, Syria has launched an initiative to establish a “Made by a Muslim” label. The effort is said to involve 7,500 companies and aims to encourage Muslims to buy from fellow members of the umma.

“For too long we have relied upon the shoddy quality and high prices of our merchandise to help consumers identify our products,” said Ammas Krahk, spokesman for the businessmen. “But we have come to realize that this approach is too subtle for many Muslims to figure out.”

The businessmen said they had decided to set up a computerized international database that contains guidelines for the production, distribution and sale of products “that can represent an Islamic alternative to products from the West.” The strategy involves labeling products so that consumers will be able to know where they originate from and that they have been made by Muslims. An example of a conforming label would be: “Made in Syria by a Muslim.”

Krahk said that in addition to making it easier for Muslims to buy from Muslims, the new label will also make it easier to boycott products made by infidels. “If the label says ‘Made by a Muslim,’ the faithful will know it is clean,” Krahk explained. “Everything else will be quickly identified as unclean. Boycotting these unclean products will be simple.”

Canadian Tax Rates Envied by U.S. Democrats

Data from our northern neighbor reveals that the average Canadian family spends more money on taxes than on food, clothing and housing combined. A report from the Fraser Institute (http://www.fraserinstitute.ca) titled “The Canadian Consumer Tax Index, 2007,” shows that even though the income of the average Canadian family has increased since 1961, their total tax bill has increased at a higher rate.

According to the report, in 1961, the average Canadian family earned an income of $5,000 and paid $1,675 in total taxes. This amounted to 33.5 percent of the family’s income. By 2006, the average Canadian family income rose to $63,001, while their tax liability rose to $28,311. This amounted to 44.9 percent of the family’s income. Meanwhile, this average family spent only 35.6 percent of its income to buy the necessities of food, clothing and shelter.

U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) professed to be “intrigued” by the study. “I think this pretty clearly demonstrates what we have been saying all along—Americans are grossly under-taxed,” Pelosi said. “Canada is a model society. If we are going to provide the type of social benefits the Canadian government provides—benefits like nationalized healthcare—we are going to need, at a minimum, to rescind the Bush tax cuts.”

“Beyond this,” Pelosi continued, “there are some ‘behavior-modification’ measures we are considering.” The “beyond” taxes reportedly include levies on fat, fast food and talk radio.

“People aren’t eating right. They’re wasting time and getting brainwashed by right-wing propagandists like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity,” Pelosi said. “Taxes can and should be used as gentle way of guiding Americans to a better way of life.”

Iran Says Killing Rampage at Virginia Tech Unjust

Iran condemned a Korean gunman’s rampage at Virginia Tech University that left 33 people dead.

“There is no evidence that these killings were done for Islamic reasons, therefore, they cannot be justified,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini. “Attacking innocent people, irrespective of their race and nationality, is contrary to divine and human values. Killings must be sanctioned by the Quran and carefully targeted at the enemies of God to be legitimate.”

In support of his point, Hosseini cited the Iranian Supreme Court’s recent acquitted a group of men charged for a series of 18 gruesome killings in 2002. “The men were held to be not guilty because their victims were involved in un-Islamic activities,” Hosseini said. “The killers gave the warnings prescribed by the Quran before they acted. This is in accord with the word of Allah.”

According to their confessions, the killers put some of their victims in pits and stoned them to death. Others were suffocated. One man was buried alive. Others were dumped in the desert to be eaten by wild animals.

“While it is very likely that those he killed were engaged in un-Islamic behavior, Cho Seung-hui was not a Muslim and did not give the obligatory offer of conversion to Islam before killing them,” Hosseini observed. “Consequently, the killings must be condemned most harshly.”

In related news, Vice Chairman of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, Mohammad Nabi Roudaki said his country is ready for talks with the US House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). “The events at this American University reemphasize the need to disarm all Americans before it can happen again,” Roudaki said. “We will do everything in our power to help Ms. Pelosi achieve this.”