Posted on 08/26/2004 8:06:28 PM PDT by SkyPilot
NEW YORK - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday in the second such ruling in three months — even though he called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized."
U.S. District Judge Richard C. Casey — one of three federal judges across the country to hear simultaneous challenges to the law earlier this year — faulted the ban for not containing an exception to protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court has made clear is required in laws prohibiting particular types of abortion.
The law, signed last November, banned a procedure known to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.
Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the ruling.
"We can only hope as we have decision after decision after decision striking these bans, saying they endanger women's health, that the legislatures will finally stop," she said.
On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San Francisco also found the law unconstitutional, saying it violates a woman's right to choose an abortion. A judge in Lincoln, Neb., has yet to rule. The three judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.
The three verdicts are almost certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
"We are in the process of the appeal of these issues now, which tells you exactly what we're doing and where we're going," Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) said Thursday.
The government has already appealed the San Francisco ruling, said Monica Goodling, a Justice Department (news - web sites) spokeswoman.
The ban, which President Clinton (news - web sites) twice vetoed, was seen by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure from the Supreme Court's 1973 precedent in Roe v. Wade (news - web sites). But the Bush administration has argued that the procedure is cruel and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.
At trials earlier this year, doctors testified that of 1.3 million abortions performed annually, the law would affect about 130,000, almost all in the second trimester. Some observers suggest the number would be much lower — 2,200 to 5,000.
In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He said the Supreme Court had made it clear that "this gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in which any women could potentially benefit from it."
At another point, Casey wrote that testimony put before himself and Congress showed the outlawed abortion technique to be a "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized medical procedure."
Casey, who was appointed to the bench by President Clinton in 1997, was considered by some observers to be the best legal hope for the law's supporters.
"We were on pins and needles on this one," said Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) Federation of America. "The judge was very aggressive in his questioning and very transparent in his articulation of his personal views on the matter. Fortunately, he chose to uphold the law."
During a hearing earlier this year, Casey repeatedly asked doctors whether they tell pregnant women prior before an abortion that they will rip the fetus apart and that it might feel pain.
"Did you tell them you were sucking the brains out of the same baby they desired to hold?" the judge asked Dr. Carolyn Westhoff, who performs or supervises hundreds of abortions a year in Manhattan.
At another point, Casey, who is blind, asked Westhoff whether a mother can detect in advance whether a baby will be born blind. "Not that I'm aware of," Westhoff answered.
The problem is that anything can be cited as evidence that the pregnancy is detrimental to the mother's "health." The whole "exception to protect a woman's health" is a red herring.
An alternative "exception to protect a woman's life" is reasonable.
Therefore, according to Judge Casey, "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized" acts are Constitutional to inflict on innocent babies but unconstitutional to inflict on guilty murderers, rapists and child molesters.
I have two words for Casey that I won't write here but I'm sure you and others know what they are.
That's all you need to know.
Reason number 435,876,900,359 that reelecting President Bush is a moral imperative.
Help me out here..... I'm not up to speed on all the PBA arguments.
How can killing a baby who has partially exited the birth canal, and who will completely exit it thereafter, have some beneficial effect on the woman's health? It's coming out anyway, how does it's death on the way change anything?
Help me out here..... I'm not up to speed on all the PBA arguments.
How can killing a baby who has partially exited the birth canal, and who will completely exit it thereafter, have some beneficial effect on the woman's health? It's coming out anyway, how does it's death on the way change anything?
What threat could a completed birth pose to a mother that a partial birth hasn't already presented?
None, is the answer. You have to remove the baby from the womb in order to kill it; it is, in effect, already born. Permitting a "safety of the mother" exception to the partial birth ban is dishonest. No one believes it, they merely agree to pretend to believe it in the interest of protecting a gruesome, unjustifiable practice.
The judge agrees that its gruesome, and moves to protect it even so. Its bad enough to promote evil without having thought it through. Its another thing altogether to defend it fully knowing what you do.
This is the least surprising bit of news I've heard in a while.
"I have a headache, kill my baby".-
Yes, that is probably the gist of any health-related exemptions that the Dems/Left would be willing to go along with.
The judge doesn't have a clue that partial birth abortions are as risky as letting babies develop to term and allowing them to be delivered.
There isn't one case where this particular procedure is any safer than any other method of late term abortion.
I am against all late term abortions, but the judge's ruling on this is just plain ignorant.
Typical Dem convoluted ruling: "Yes, it's torture, but since I'm principled, I'll allow it."
Sorry, I'll try again!
Maybe someone with better HTML skills can post the picture. (Guess I need to practice some more.)
http://www.tidalweb.com/life/photo.htm
It won't benefit the mother at all.
That entire argument is BS.
I have to go back and brush up on my ninth-grade civics notes. I could have sworn that it was the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on matters pertaining to the U.S. Constitution...
The Partial Birth Abortion Procedure
Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.
The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole...
The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.
I wonder if this "judge" knows that he (like all of us) will have to stand before the judgement seat of Jesus Christ.
I wonder if this "judge" knows that he (like all of us) will have to stand before the judgement seat of Jesus Christ.
They do not realize this at all. They are secular humanists. I pray for their conversion so they will not suffer eternal damnation.
blessings, Bobo
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.