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

Skip to comments.

No Partial-Birth Lawsuits Shows Abortion Advocates Lied About Health Exception
Life News ^ | 4/27/08 | Paul Nowak

Posted on 04/28/2008 4:36:05 PM PDT by wagglebee

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- April 18 marked the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart, in which it rejected legal challenges to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

While opponents of the ban claimed numerous lawsuits would be brought forth to challenge the Supreme Court's ruling, thus far no challenges have been filed.

One of the four justices who dissented in the Gonzales ruling to uphold the ban, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, expressed her expectation of challenges.

She claimed they would "be mounted swiftly, to ward off serious, sometimes remediable harm, to women whose health would be endangered by the prohibition."

Ginsburg also claimed "the record already includes hundreds and hundreds of pages of testimony identifying 'discrete and well-defined instances' in which recourse to an intact D&E [partial-birth abortion] would better protect the health of women with particular conditions."

The lack of challenges in the past year sheds serious doubt on the validity of the testimony and claims of abortion advocates regarding partial birth abortion.

Edward Whelan, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, wrote in a recent National Review article that the ban appears safely constitutional long-term.

"In bringing an as-applied challenge, the abortion industry would have to show (in the Court's words) that, 'in discrete and well-defined circumstances, a particular condition has or is likely to occur in which the procedure prohibited by the Act must be used' to 'protect the health of the woman,'" he said.

"It hasn't dared even to try to do so," Whelan wrote.

In his article, Whelan explained that, when the Supreme Court declared a state ban on partial-birth abortion unconstitutional in the 2000 case Stenberg v. Carhart, it stated the practice could not be banned until "there exists a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in which any women could potentially benefit from it."

The 2007 ruling, however, requires that the standard rule of evidence be applied.

That the abortion industry hasn't brought lawsuit about supposed partial-birth abortions necessary to protect women's health isn't a shock to pro-life advocates.

They recall Ron Fitzsimmons, the director of a trade group of abortion businesses, who admitted "I lied through my teeth" when saying abortions were needed for health reasons.

President Bush signed the national partial-birth abortion ban into law in 2003 and abortion advocates took it to court in three separate lawsuits. Federal courts in each case relied on the Supreme Court's decision in 2000 and declared the ban unconstitutional.

In 2007, the Supreme Court reversed its 2000 decision.

The 2007 ruling indicated that the federal ban on the abortion procedure did not violate the so-called right to abortion established under Roe v. Wade.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: moralabsolutes; partialbirthabortion; prolife
The lack of challenges in the past year sheds serious doubt on the validity of the testimony and claims of abortion advocates regarding partial birth abortion.

Big Abortion is and always has been based on lies.

1 posted on 04/28/2008 4:37:05 PM PDT by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cgk; Coleus; cpforlife.org; narses; 8mmMauser

Pro-Life Ping


2 posted on 04/28/2008 4:37:57 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 230FMJ; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; An American In Dairyland; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


3 posted on 04/28/2008 4:38:33 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Not withstanding the abortion issue, the libs who push this crap lie and create false circumstances around every issues they hold dear.


4 posted on 04/28/2008 4:49:58 PM PDT by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
'in discrete and well-defined circumstances, a particular condition has or is likely to occur in which the procedure prohibited by the Act must be used' to 'protect the health of the woman,'"

Has this circumstance, condition or loss of health ever actually been specified? I always see this vague phrase thrown around but I have yet to see a single, specific condition or circumstance described in which a partial-birth abortion is the "cure". Does anyone have a quote on it?

5 posted on 04/28/2008 5:09:14 PM PDT by workerbee (Ladies do not start fights, but they can finish them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: workerbee

It DOES NOT exist.


6 posted on 04/28/2008 5:11:26 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Of course I believe that. Anyone who could get far enough into the delivery to have a PBA could survive delivery of a living child. But surely there must have been something specific addressed at some point in one of the legal documents. I'm just curious as to what that may have been and how they worded it.
7 posted on 04/28/2008 5:18:31 PM PDT by workerbee (Ladies do not start fights, but they can finish them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: workerbee

I would think that you could probably find the transcripts, briefs and certainly opinions for Gonzales v. Carhart online. If it’s anywhere, that’s where it would be. But any argument would be, in my opinion, so far fetched as to be impossible.


8 posted on 04/28/2008 5:21:51 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

And the very first lie was that it was just a “blob of tissue, not really a baby”.


9 posted on 04/28/2008 5:49:35 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

And the very first lie was that it was just a “blob of tissue, not really a baby”. The very first thing that happens when someone wants to murder huge groups of people is to dehumanize them.


10 posted on 04/28/2008 5:50:34 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: workerbee
I have read the opinion and it would appear that the abortion advocates argument was that the legislature erred in it's original wording, claiming it was to vague.

They seemed to have claimed that since no one could say for "certain" what might threaten the mother's life, there being no medical "consensus" in this area, anything other than a narrowly defined prohibition to the procedure would constitute an "undue burden" and thereby violate a woman's "right" to chose to have an abortion and to not be unduly impeded in the exercise of said "right" by the Government.

The original desicion placed the onus on the legislature to narrowly define what would constitute a "threat to the mothers life" whereas this most recent desicion seems to have place the onus back on the abortion provider requiring them to define what condition would place the mothers life at risk and to justify the performance of the intact D&E (partial birth abortion) as the "sole remedy" to said condition.

11 posted on 04/28/2008 6:49:59 PM PDT by The_Pickle ("We have no Permanent Allies, We have no Permanent Enemies, Only Permanent Interests")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Pinged from Terri Dailies

8mm


12 posted on 04/29/2008 4:48:36 AM PDT by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: umgud
<[>Not withstanding the abortion issue, the libs who push this crap lie and create false circumstances around every issues they hold dear.

Not surprising --- murderers are not known for telling the truth about their murders or their intent to murder.

13 posted on 04/29/2008 7:21:26 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20

Yup......spin, spin, spin. Never ever call it murder, not even late term abortion.


14 posted on 04/29/2008 7:23:52 AM PDT by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: The_Pickle
http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:M29LfndYw-cJ:www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf+Gonzales+v.+Carhart&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CARHART
ET AL .

15 posted on 04/29/2008 7:58:19 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | 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