Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court sets November 8 2006 for partial-birth abortion oral arguments
Baptist Press ^ | Aug 15, 2006

Posted on 08/16/2006 10:36:25 PM PDT by cpforlife.org

Aug 15, 2006 By Staff Baptist Press WASHINGTON (BP)--The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Nov. 8 on the constitutionality of a federal ban on the grisly procedure known as partial-birth abortion.

The high court announced Aug. 14 it would hear arguments in two cases involving the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act the day after the general election. The justices will consider in back-to-back proceedings Gonzales v. Carhart, an appeal from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, out of the Ninth Circuit.

The Supreme Court, which will open its next term Oct. 2, is expected to issue an opinion in the cases before it adjourns next summer.

The 2003 law bars a procedure typically used in the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy. In the method, an intact baby is delivered normally feet first until only the head is left in the birth canal. The doctor pierces the base of the infant’s skull with surgical scissors before inserting a catheter into the opening and suctioning out the brain, killing the baby. The technique provides for easier removal of the baby’s head. One nurse who witnessed the procedure testified in court several years ago she saw the baby's hands "clasping and unclasping" and its feet "kicking" before it was killed.

Three different appeals courts at the federal level have ruled the prohibition is unconstitutional. The Eighth Circuit invalidated the law based on its lack of an exception for the health of the mother, while the Ninth Circuit said the ban imposes an undue burden on women and is too vague.

The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission signed on to a friend-of-the-court brief filed in May in the Eighth Circuit case in support of the law. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops submitted the brief.

The SBC approved resolutions condemning the partial-birth procedure in both 1996 and 2002.

Pro-life advocates hold out hope that the January confirmation of Samuel Alito as an associate justice means the Supreme Court will reverse the lower court decisions. Alito replaced retired Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted with a 5-4 majority that struck down a state ban on partial-birth abortion six years ago.

After President Bush signed the bill into law in November 2003, abortion rights organizations quickly challenged it in three courts and blocked its enforcement. Federal judges in New York City, San Francisco and Lincoln, Neb., struck down the law. Three-judge panels in the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco, the Eighth Circuit, based in St. Louis, and Second Circuit, based in New York, upheld the lower court decisions.

The judiciary’s requirement of an exception for a mother’s health has frustrated attempts to enact a meaningful prohibition of the partial-birth procedure. Until now, the dilemma that advocates of the ban have been unable to solve is this: If they pass a partial-birth abortion ban without a health exception, the courts strike it down; if they approve a ban with a health exception, it is ineffective because of the judiciary’s definition of “health.”

In its 1973 Doe v. Bolton opinion, which accompanied the Roe decision, the Supreme Court defined maternal health so expansively it had the practical effect of permitting abortion for any reason throughout all stages of pregnancy.

Congress approved the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act by wide margins in 2003, with the Senate voting 64-34 for the bill and the House of Representatives passing it in a 281-142 vote. Congress had twice adopted partial-birth abortion bans in the 1990s only to have President Clinton veto them. In both 1996 and 1998, the House achieved the two-thirds majorities necessary to override vetoes, but the Senate fell short.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 08november2006; abortion; docket; gonzalesvcarhart; holocaust; murder; partialbirth; scotus
This happens THOUSANDS of times a year. It is a horrendously brutal act of violence. It is not only MURDER, but a crime against humanity.

Partial-Birth Abortion

Illustration of partial-birth abortion performed
at 24 weeks gestational age.

Letter from Anthony P. Levatino, M.D., J.D., former abortionist, explaining that the images shown above "accurately depict" the partial-birth abortion method, and that "the images are size-appropriate to a fetus of approximately 24 weeks gestation." -- March 4, 2003


1 posted on 08/16/2006 10:36:28 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; TenthAmendmentChampion; ...
Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

2 posted on 08/16/2006 10:37:11 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

In connection to the scientific fact that life begins at conception, science also proves beyond a doubt that the pre-born child experiences pain at 20 weeks, and at earlier ages as well at differing levels of perception.

This fact was brought out in open US federal court proceedings in 2004. Horrific testimony was entered into the official record each day in three separate federal District Court cases, each filed to stop the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, an Oxford and Harvard trained neonatal pediatrician and pain expert testified at the New York federal court hearings on April 13, 2004. Below is an excerpt from WORLD Magazine April 24, 2004 issue. The title of the article was Painfully unaware:

Dr. Anand took the stand in the morning and testified for hours that unborn children can feel pain even more vividly than adults or even infants. He said that by 20 weeks fetuses have developed all the nerve and brain functions to feel pain, but none of the coping mechanisms that help infants and adults to deal with the sensation. According to Dr. Anand's research, handling the fetus in the womb, delivering the child up to its head, slicing open its skull and sucking out the brains would all produce "prolonged and excruciating pain to the fetus."

The evidence for fetal pain is not new-Dr. Anand studied expressions of pain in unborn and neonatal children as early as the 1980s-but the legal argument is novel. Unlike previous legislative attempts to ban partial-birth abortion, Congress used a fetal-pain argument to rally support. If a fetus does feel pain as early as 20 weeks into the pregnancy, it bolsters Congress' ethical argument for banning the procedure. And in the courtroom it humanizes the unborn child in a way that the pro-life legal community has never been able to do.
http://www.worldmag.com/displayarticle.cfm?id=8807


The pro-abortion side attempts to lessen the horror of the reality of murdering children in the womb and the terrible pain that these babies endure while being aborted by claiming that late term abortions are rare. But that outright lie is exposed many times over, from around the world.

As reported by The Washington Times, on April 7, 2004, Dr. Anand also testified in federal district court in Lincoln, Nebraska in the suit there to stop the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Dr. Anand testified that: "I believe the fetus is conscious," and that the pain during this procedure is "severe and excruciating" to 20-week-old pre-born children.

Under cross-examination, Dr. Anand said he believes a less-controversial abortion procedure, known as "dilation and evacuation" (D&E), would cause the same amount of pain to a child. An estimated 140,000 D&Es, the most common method of second-trimester abortion, take place in the United States annually. http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040406-111818-1409r


3 posted on 08/16/2006 10:40:50 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

BTTT


4 posted on 08/16/2006 10:45:30 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
the day after the general election

Clearly not a coincidence, what is their motivation to keep the subject out of the headlines before an election?

5 posted on 08/16/2006 10:47:18 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (The Right To Take Life is NOT a Constitutional "Liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Alito and partial birth abortion.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543062/posts


6 posted on 08/16/2006 10:50:36 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TeleStraightShooter

This procedure is clearly murder.

It's supporters are obviously victims of the procedure who happened to survive. It would explain a lot about the behavior of the left.


7 posted on 08/16/2006 10:52:01 PM PDT by 308MBR ( "She pulled up her petticoat, and I pulled out for Tulsa!" Abstinence training from Bob Wills.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

Barbaric. It's a crime against humanity. This is why we fight the good fight.


8 posted on 08/16/2006 10:52:57 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture (It's like déjà vu all over again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TeleStraightShooter
Clearly not a coincidence, what is their motivation to keep the subject out of the headlines before an election?

RIGHT

It's a loose-loose for the DEMS and the media whores who love the DEM party of death.

Hopefully many people will think twice before voting for a pol they know supports this satanic procedure.
9 posted on 08/16/2006 11:02:05 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

Murderers.


10 posted on 08/16/2006 11:43:57 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org; TeleStraightShooter

Wouldn't have anything to do with the ongoings in South Dakota would it...?


11 posted on 08/17/2006 12:22:18 AM PDT by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

Partal birth abortion is murder and those who preform or assist are murderers.
Hate to have to go before St. Peter and ask permission to pass the gates of heaven with that on my resume.


12 posted on 08/17/2006 3:14:34 AM PDT by Joe Boucher (an enemy of islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TeleStraightShooter
Clearly not a coincidence, what is their motivation to keep the subject out of the headlines before an election?

Not only do they want to keep it out of the headlines, but they also want to see how the election turns out. If the Dems gain seats, especially in the Senate, the SC will figure they don't have to deal with this anymore and they will vote to allow this procedure. They would know a conservative justice isn't coming their way any time soon and so they can legalize this in good conscience.

13 posted on 08/17/2006 4:37:59 AM PDT by GoBucks2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

The fact that there has to be a hearing about this most barbaric thing is evidence just how degraded american society has become.


14 posted on 08/17/2006 4:41:41 AM PDT by observer5 (It's not a War on Terror - it's a WAR ON STUPIDITY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

November 8...my birthday.

All I want for my birthday is for this barbaric act to be outlawed.


15 posted on 08/17/2006 6:04:28 AM PDT by kimmie7 (Liberals embrace the sin......Christians embrace the sinner.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: observer5

I agree. The most frustrating aspect of this whole horrific thing is that it is never medically necessary. With that in mind it is impossible to understand how the bans are ever overturned at all(leftist political agenda aside of course).


16 posted on 08/17/2006 6:30:36 AM PDT by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All

Another case where activist judges went against the law and legislated from the bench.

This is why the GOP cannot lose the Senate. If they do, the Democrats will have control of the judiciary committee, and President Bush's judicial nominees won't make it to the floor for an up, or down, vote.


17 posted on 08/17/2006 6:35:27 AM PDT by Sun (Hillary had a D-/F rating on immigration; now she wants to build a wall????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GoBucks2002
interesting angle that makes sense.

ProLife candidates should point this out.
If "wait and see" is not the case then the SCOTUS scheduling clerks are doing their part in managing national headlines before an election.

18 posted on 08/17/2006 9:04:59 AM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (The Right To Take Life is NOT a Constitutional "Liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...


19 posted on 08/17/2006 9:34:30 AM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson