Supreme Court Partial Birth Abortion Case - "I'm Convinced Kennedy will vote with Us"

WASHINGTON, November 8, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Moments after the hearing of oral arguments in the partial-birth abortion case before the United States Supreme Court today, a pro-life lawyer involved in the case is predicting a "major victory". Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), said that he is convinced the ban on partial birth abortion will be ruled constitutional.

The ACLJ has filed amicus briefs in both cases before the Supreme Court - including one on behalf of some 80 members of Congress - including the sponsors of the federal ban on the gruesome procedure.

In 2000, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to reject the state ban on partial-birth abortion by Nebraska. Now, the high court - with two new Justices - heard oral arguments in two cases challenging the federal ban on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. "Three of the Justices - Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas - already have compared this procedure to infanticide when the court rejected Nebraska's state ban six years ago," said Sekulow.

Since that time Bush appointees to the Supreme Court John Roberts and Samuel Alito have joined the court. Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor who supported striking down the Nebraska law banning partial-birth abortion.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Alito and Roberts are expected to vote in favour of the federal ban. While Kennedy has voted in favour of such a ban in the past, his vote is uncertain. However, after attending the hearings today, Sekulow said of Justice Kennedy, "Based on the questions that he asked and the answers that were given I am convinced that he will in fact stay with us and find the partial-birth abortion ban act constitutional."

Sekulow added: "The federal ban discussed today was the result of extensive Congressional hearings that produced a sound, constitutional solution to ending an abhorrent practice that is never medically necessary. The Solicitor General did an excellent job of presenting the government's case in support of the ban. We're hopeful that a majority of the Justices will conclude what most Americans already know: the federal ban on partial-birth abortion is a valid - indeed essential - barrier against infanticide."

Although the Justices voted this afternoon, a decision is not expected till June.

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."

This illustration is MUCH too "sanitized".

We're talking about babies that would (often) live and thrive (with some medical help) out side the womb -- who feel PAIN much like a new born -- who are jerked out (almost fully) and then have the equivalent of a fat ice pick stuck in the back of their head (like a mafia hit) -- and -- then their brains sucked out.

Also this procedure is not "disgusting" -- THIS is torture and murder -- plain and simple -- that would make Saddam proud. If they executed murders this way, the left would stop it in a heartbeat!

One of the problems is that NOT a whole lot of people understand what is really done. I tried to tell my (then new) wife about it -- who was pro abortion at the time -- and it took 15 (or so) tries to get her to listen to a full -- calmly explained -- description. She couldn't stand to listed to it the first 14 attempts.

This needs to be broadcast -- in it's full glory and gore -- to the world. I suspect that a great many people who THINK this is not much different than sucking out a few cells would be crying for a ban...NOW!!!

Let's hope SCOTUS gets it right this time and it starts a wave!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.3.ENR:

catch the Devilish Detail

"SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL -BIRTH ABORTIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 73 the following:
`CHAPTER 74--PARTIAL -BIRTH ABORTIONS
`Sec.
`1531. Partial -birth abortions prohibited.
`Sec. 1531. Partial -birth abortions prohibited

`(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial -birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial -birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

`(b) As used in this section--

`(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion--

`(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and

Did you catch the Devilish Detail?

Sec.1531 instructs the "doctor" to make sure and kill the child before "in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother". Or "in the case of breech presentation", make sure the child is killed before "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother".

All a Pro-Abortion physician has to do is to unilaterally "declare" that the mother's life is in danger if a Partial Birth Abortion is not performed. As has been demonstrated so often during the past 40 years, this declaration does not have to contain any kernel of truth for a physician to make the claim. The physician makes the false claim, the procedure is carried out, and the clinic makes a lot of money selling the baby's brains and other body parts!

"Pro-lifers: Partial-birth ban 'a waste' ", WorldNetDaily, 6/6/03, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32955

Justices Have Pointed Abortion Discourse

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061108/D8L91IQ00.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court justices Wednesday sharply questioned attorneys on both sides of the legal battle over what opponents call partial-birth abortions as the high court weighed whether to uphold Congress's ban on the procedure.

In an intense morning of arguments, lawyers for the Bush administration and supporters of abortion rights gave starkly contrasting views: A law passed by Congress labels it a gruesome and inhumane practice. Supporters argue that such abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy sometimes are the safest for women.

A man in the audience began shouting midway through the proceedings, disrupting the hearing briefly before police dragged him away.

Seven justices took part in questioning both sides about whether the court should defer to congressional findings that these abortions are never medically necessary. Abortion advocates disagree, saying there is strong medical evidence to the contrary.

Justice Samuel Alito, hearing his first abortion cases since joing the court earlier this year, sat silently through two hours of arguments. Justice Clarence Thomas was sick and did not attend, Chief Justice John Roberts announced.

"We have no evidence in the record" as to how often such a situation arises? Roberts asked.

"No, your honor," replied attorney Priscilla Smith, who argued for striking down the federal law.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned the rationale that abortion opponents are using in the case, pointing out that the assertion that partial-birth abortion is a particularly gruesome procedure also could apply to the most commonly used method of abortion in the second trimester.

"I don't think so, Justice Ginsburg," Solicitor General Paul Clement replied.

Ginsburg asked whether the procedures in the two types of abortions are "basically the same," making it hard to distinguish whether a doctor could be prosecuted for performing the banned method.

"I just don't think the record supports" that notion, Clement responded.

At issue is the fate of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003.

Six federal courts on both coasts and in the Midwest have struck down the law as an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion that the Supreme Court established in its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973.

A day earlier, abortion was on several state ballots. In South Dakota, voters repealed a state law that virtually outlaws abortions, an issue that itself could end up before the court.

California and Oregon voters rejected measures that would have required that teenagers get their parents' consent before having an abortion.

A long line of people hoping for a seat inside stretched across the court's plaza hours before the session was to begin. Dozens of people camped through a rainy night in Washington to ensure their place near the head of the line.

Partial-birth abortion is not a medical term, but abortion opponents say it accurately describes "a rarely used and gruesome late-term abortion procedure that resembles infanticide," as Solicitor General Paul Clement said in court papers. Clement will argue the case for the administration.

Abortion-rights proponents dispute almost every aspect of the government's case, including the name for the procedure. They say the law has a much broader reach than the government claims and would threaten almost all abortions that take place after the third month of pregnancy.

Doctors most often refer to the procedure as a dilation and extraction or an intact dilation and evacuation abortion. It involves partially extracting a fetus from the uterus, then cutting or crushing its skull.

The procedure appears to take place most often in the middle third of pregnancy. There are a few thousand such abortions, according to rough estimates, out of more than 1.25 million abortions in the United States annually. Ninety percent of all abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not at issue.

By a 5-4 vote, the court invalidated a similar law in Nebraska in 2000 because it encompassed other abortion methods and did not contain an exception that would allow the procedure to preserve a woman's health, an underpinning of Supreme Court abortion rulings.

Two things have changed in the past six years, the composition of the court and Congress' involvement in the issue by tailoring a law to overcome the objections raised by justices in the Nebraska case.

Abortion opponents are optimistic the court will uphold the law because Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, part of the majority in the 2000 case, has retired and her place was taken by Justice Samuel Alito.

Bush appointed both Roberts and Alito, and most legal analysts believe that neither man will be especially supportive of abortion rights.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing voter following O'Connor's departure, dissented so strongly in the Nebraska case that many court observers believe he is unlikely to switch sides.

The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.

---

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

From Kennedy's unsparingly critical dissent in Stenberg v. Carhart:

"Ignoring substantial medical and ethical opinion, the Court substitutes its own judgment for the judgment of Nebraska and some 30 other States and sweeps the law away. The Court’s holding stems from misunderstanding the record, misinterpretation of Casey, outright refusal to respect the law of a State, and statutory construction in conflict with settled rules. The decision nullifies a law expressing the will of the people of Nebraska that medical procedures must be governed by moral principles having their foundation in the intrinsic value of human life, including life of the unborn. Through their law the people of Nebraska were forthright in confronting an issue of immense moral consequence. The State chose to forbid a procedure many decent and civilized people find so abhorrent as to be among the most serious of crimes against human life, while the State still protected the woman’s autonomous right of choice as reaffirmed in Casey. The Court closes its eyes to these profound concerns.

"From the decision, the reasoning, and the judgment, I dissent."

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.