Posted on 06/19/2006 5:25:40 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 19, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Supreme Court is set to revisit a second Bush Administration appeal that seeks to reinstate a ban on partial birth abortion, reports the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).
The ACLJ, which specializes in constitutional law, said it is pleased the Supreme Court has decided to hear the case, which involves the constitutionality of the national ban on partial-birth abortion.
“The Supreme Court took a significant step today that clearly puts the issue of partial-birth abortion front-and-center,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, which litigates pro-life issues. “By taking a second case involving the constitutionality of the national ban on partial-birth abortion, the Supreme Court puts the spotlight on one of the most horrific medical procedures in existence today. The high court not only will determine whether Congress acted appropriately in enacting the ban, but the high court also has a critical opportunity to bring to an end – once and for all – the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. Taking a second case clearly elevates one of the most culturally significant issues of our time. The stakes are high and we are very pleased that the Supreme Court now has two opportunities to abolish what can only be described as infanticide.”
In 2000, five justices of the Supreme Court, including retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, ruled that the abortion right originally created in Roe v. Wade allows an abortionist to perform a partial-birth abortion any time he sees a 'health' benefit, even if the woman and her unborn baby are entirely healthy. (Stenberg v. Carhart, June 28, 2000). This ruling struck down the ban on partial-birth abortion that had been enacted by Nebraska, and rendered unenforceable the similar bans that more than half the states had enacted.
Nevertheless, in 2003 Congress approved and President Bush signed a national law, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. When he signed the ban, the President called partial-birth abortion "a terrible form of violence [that] has been directed against children who are inches from birth."
The federal law has faced legal challenges in three different federal circuits, and its enforcement has been blocked by court orders. Federal district courts in all three circuits ruled that the federal law violated the 2000 Supreme Court ruling. In all three cases the adverse judgments were affirmed by the appellate courts.
The ACLJ has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court representing 78 members of Congress and more than 320,000 Americans asking the high court to uphold the constitutionality of the national ban on partial-birth abortion in a case out of Nebraska.
In its brief filed in the Nebraska case, the ACLJ asserts: “Partial birth procedures represent the beachhead of this assault on postnatal life, the bridge between abortion and infanticide. Absent strong legal barriers and vigorous societal condemnation, partial birth procedures open the way to legal infanticide.”
We have prayed too long and hard to end this holocaust.
Dittos.
The problem is not going to be Roberts or Alito. The problem is going to be how to get judge #5 to vote against this barbaric killing procedure and who that judge will be. If it is Kennedy it won't be a clear cut decision. Kennedy has been fashioning himself as the swing vote and assuming judicial power that does not belong to him in order to make a name for himself. The crux of the matter will be to break his ego boosting voting practices of late with some commonsense talk probably coming from Roberts.
Thanks for the ping, and the opportunity to pray more specifically about this, AW.
If that should happen it really will hit the judicial fan. I think it has been reported that Stevens is more asleep on the Court than he is awake. But, I don't know if he would dare "retire." He would be blackballed from every liberal group he might belong to. As Ann Coulter says abortion is the holy sacrament of the libs. I think we are going to have to wait until the Good Lord takes one more from the SC in His own way and at His own time.
bttt
I'll be watching Kennedy. I think he's going to be the deal maker or breaker, for a while.
It always struck me as remarkable that a man like Rudy could support abortion on demand. When you are a prosecutor, you are trying to get justice for victims. We have all made mistakes in our lives, but that he has not - to the best of my knowledge - changed his position is incomprehensible to me.
It always struck me as remarkable that a man like Rudy could support abortion on demand. When you are a prosecutor, you are trying to get justice for victims. We have all made mistakes in our lives, but that he has not - to the best of my knowledge - changed his position is incomprehensible to me.
So funny how the same people who rail against "censorship" can't stand to look at the pictures of the dead babies. I guess it really does bothe them.
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.