Posted on 11/09/2006 5:06:25 PM PST by Graybeard58
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The graphic details of a disputed abortion procedure filled the Supreme Court on Wednesday as justices voiced concern with a federal ban on that operation.
Justices brought up uncomfortable images in sharp questions to lawyers on both sides. The issue: whether Congress was within its rights when it banned a procedure opponents call partial-birth abortion, for which there is little hard data and much disagreement.
"Wouldn't the fetus ... suffer a demise in seconds anyway?" Justice John Paul Stevens asked, focusing on the law's ban on how, rather than whether an abortion may be performed.
Solicitor General Paul Clement replied: "Well it may be seconds, it may be hours."
"Do you not agree that it has no chance of surviving, in most cases?" Stevens asked again.
In an intense morning of arguments, lawyers for the Bush administration and supporters of abortion rights gave starkly contrasting views on the practice: A law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2003 labels it gruesome, inhumane and never medically necessary. Supporters argue that such abortions sometimes are the safest for women.
An anti-abortion protester in the audience began shouting midway through the first of two hours of arguments, briefly disrupting the hearing before police dragged him away.
A day after voters defeated abortion restrictions in three states, hundreds of protesters gathered in the rain outside the court. Anti-abortion advocates curled up in the fetal position along the wet sidewalk, forcing pedestrians to step over them as abortion rights groups chanted and held signs nearby.
The Bush administration is defending the law as drawing a line between abortion and infanticide.
The method involves partially extracting an intact fetus from the uterus, then cutting or crushing its skull.
Doctors most often refer to the procedure as a dilation and extraction or an intact dilation and evacuation abortion.
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.
Six federal courts have said the law is an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
Clement told justices that it is significant whether "fetal demise takes place in utero or outside the mother's womb. The one is abortion, the other is murder."
Eve Gartner, arguing on behalf of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said, "What Congress has done here is take away from women the option of what may be the safest procedure for her. This court has never recognized a state interest that was sufficient to trump the women's interest in her health."
Four justices remain on the court who were part of a five-vote majority opinion that invalidated a similar Nebraska law six years ago because it lacked an exception to preserve a woman's health and encompassed a more common abortion method.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stevens all indicated they were troubled either by the federal law's lack of a health exception and its apparent disregard for a significant body of medical opinion that the procedure can be the best choice.
Justice Anthony Kennedy raised questions about the law, but also voiced concerns six years ago before he wrote an impassioned dissent saying he would have upheld the Nebraska law.
Chief Justice John Roberts appeared favorably inclined to the administration's defense of the law. He asked several times whether there was any evidence to suggest the banned abortion procedure was anything more than marginally safer than the more common dilation and evacuation method, in which a fetus is dismembered as it is removed from the uterus.
Justice Samuel Alito, hearing his first abortion arguments since joining the court earlier this year, sat silently through two hours of debate. Justice Antonin Scalia, a vocal abortion opponent, also was uncharacteristically quiet through the arguments.
Justice Clarence Thomas was out sick Wednesday, but will take part in deciding the cases, Roberts announced.
A ruling is expected before July.
The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.
The first time I fully understood the procedure, was a floor speech by Rick Santorum. Brought a grown man to his knees in tears at the brutality.
He also put the Beast on the spot in that debate IIRC.
He sealed his fate with that. The baby-killers will not stop.
I just had a discussion with my wife about this procedure.
Lib dont beleive it is murder because life begins at birth.
What has the details of the procedure to do with the law
The law says it is illegal
Congress either has the right or doesn't have the right to pass the law
Why, once the head has been delivered, is it necessary to "crush" the babys' head? To murder the baby? To make damn sure the baby has 0 chance of life? I can't even find the words...
How does something that isn't alive suffer a demise?
I was against abortion.
Then a friend came to me, tears in her eyes. She told me that she had an abortion at three months gestation, about a year before she met her husband. After they saw my daughter they decided to start trying and could not concieve. The doctors found that the abortion had scarred her uterus, and she would not be able to concieve. Even if she did she wouldn't be able to carry it. She admitted everything to her husband, he felt cheated. Their marriage fell apart two months later over it. A baby murdered, a marriage destroyed, and two lives irrevocably changed, all because my friend bought the lies of how a baby would just be an inconvenience.
Then I had the procedure described to me by a nurse who had assisted in abortions before being saved. Like you said, I was a grown man, who has seen the elephant, brought to his knees in tears.
A country, a nation, a world that allows this is not fit to exist.
---- a story that at first doesn't appear germane to the conversation ----
A frail old man went to live with his son, daughter-in-law, and four-year old grandson.
The old man's hands trembled, his eyesight was blurred, and his step faltered. The family ate together at the table.
But the elderly grandfather's shaky hands and failing sight made eating difficult. Peas rolled off his spoon onto the floor. When he grasped the glass, milk spilled on the tablecloth. The son and daughter-in-law became irritated with the mess.
"We must do something about Grandfather," said the son. I've had enough of his spilled milk, noisy eating, and food on the floor.
So the husband and wife set a small table in the corner.
There, Grandfather ate alone while the rest of the family enjoyed dinner. Since Grandfather had broken a dish or two, his food was served in a wooden bowl.
When the family glanced in Grandfather's direction, sometimes he had a tear in his eye as he sat alone.
Still, the only words the couple had for him were sharp admonitions when he dropped a fork or spilled food.
The four-year-old watched it all in silence. One evening before supper, the father noticed his son playing with wood scraps on the floor. He asked the child sweetly, "What are you making?"
Just as sweetly, the boy responded, "Oh, I am making a little bowl for you and Mama to eat your food from when I grow up."
The four-year-old smiled and went back to work.
The words so struck the parents that they were speechless. Then tears started to stream down their cheeks. Though no word was spoken, both knew what must be done.
That evening the husband took Grandfather's hand and gently led him back to the family table.
For the remainder of his days he ate every meal with the family.
And for some reason, neither husband nor wife seemed to care any longer when a fork was dropped, milk spilled, or the tablecloth got soiled.
Children are remarkably perceptive. Their eyes ever observe, their ears ever listen, and their minds ever process the messages they absorb. If they see us patiently provide a happy home atmosphere for family members, they will imitate that attitude for the rest of their lives.
I heard some of this discussion on the radio. The mere fact that it is even being discussed openly, by the U.S. Supreme Court, shows how terribly far America has fallen into the cesspool.
The procedure is barbarous. The euphemisms are repugnant. The law against this monstrous practice should be upheld 9-0 in about nine seconds.
Wake up, America. Your soul is in danger.
I'll never forget something I read here on FR by stopislamnow...
"Nazis kill Jews. Democrats kill babies."
My wife was asking what the procedure was.
She never heard of it. She is no lib.
I just told her what it was about
There are no words to justify abortion.
AMEN
What was her reaction?
And never stop saying it. Say it any and every where you can. Thanks
As somebody said, if God doesn't bring judgment down on America, He'll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.
She was horrified. I am going to show her the picture.
She is a stay home school mom and has no time
for politics. She is a conservative and voted R with me
this time.
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.
