Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III
Posted on 06/26/2009 6:18:37 AM PDT by NYer
.- The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 6-5 decision on Wednesday upheld Virginia’s partial-birth abortion ban. In his concurring opinion, one judge wrote that the law protects the “weakest” and “most helpless” and condemned the use of the Constitution to justify “dismembering” a partly born child and “crushing” its skull.
In its ruling “Richmond Medical Center v. Herring,” the court said the 2003 Virginia law does not unduly burden a woman’s legal right to terminate a pregnancy by more conventional means. It also ruled the law is clear about the type of procedure banned and adequately protects women’s health.
The decision reverses a May 2008 2-1 panel decision which struck down the law, which is similar to a federal statute prohibiting a procedure in which the baby is partially delivered and then killed.
According to the Alliance Defense Fund, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Fourth Circuit panel to revisit its original September 2007 decision that the ban was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had upheld a partial-birth abortion ban in the case “Carhart v. Gonzales.”
Judge Paul V. Niemeyer authored the majority opinion in Wednesday’s decision, which won the concurrence of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III.
"A partially born child is among the weakest, most helpless beings in our midst and on that account exerts a special claim on our protection," Judge Wilkinson wrote.
“The fact is that we--civilized people—are retreating to the haven of our Constitution to justify dismembering a partly born child and crushing its skull,” his opinion continued. “Surely centuries hence, people will look back on this gruesome practice done in the name of fundamental law by a society of high achievement. And they will shudder.”
According to the Associated Press, Judge M. Blane Michael in a dissenting opinion said the law was unconstitutional because it imposes criminal liability on any doctor who intends to perform a “standard D&E” that “by accident becomes an intact D&E.”
Opponents of the law unsuccessfully argued it was unconstitutional on the grounds the procedure was too broadly defined it would prohibit the most common form of second-trimester abortion, known as a “dilation and extraction.”
In medical terminology, a partial-birth abortion is described as an “intact” dilation and extraction.
“To hold the Virginia Act facially unconstitutional for all circumstances based on the possible rare circumstance presented... is not appropriate under any standard for facial challenges,” the Fourth Circuit’s Wednesday decision read.
It added that the law provides “sufficient clarity” about prohibited conduct to enable a doctor of “reasonable intelligence” to avoid criminal liability.
Violation of the law is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.
All six judges who upheld the law were appointed by Republican presidents while the five dissenters were Democratic appointees.
Jordan Lorence, Senior Counsel for the pro-life Alliance Defense Fund, said the initial ruling of the three-judge panel “conflicted significantly” with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision.
“No one should be allowed to decide that an innocent life is worthless. Virginia has legitimately chosen to protect innocent life from a terrible procedure, and the court was right to uphold Virginia’s law,” he added.
A 3rd trimester abortion is NOT a D&E!!
Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
A 3rd trimester abortion is NOT a D&E!!
Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
And no one is surprised.
It just goes to show that Democrats aren't there to uphold the law, they are there to twist it to fit their warped and immoral views and conduct.
It is truly a snapshot of judicial activism. This time they lost.
FINALLY someone did something that was actually FOR the children. Send this judge a rose!
Good catch! All the more reason why we have to sway American voters away from the Party of Death.
Very good!
For the first time (this week), I am proud of my state - except for the POSs on the bench who voted for partial birth abortion. Hey, fellow VAers, can we get it so the vote is more lop-sided for LIFE in the future?
Btw, thanks for posting this as I sent it out to my email list with the message; This is why we need to vote Republican in 2010.
Archbiship Burke should send this to the editor of "Observatore Romano," to give him get some insights about American politics. Obama is clearly on the side of the minority in this case, and so is his party, which Burke rightly calls "the Party of death."
This decision opens the door to a definition of abortion that precludes the requisite death of the baby. Abortion must be made safe and legal for the mother as well as the baby.
Well, operations that aim to kill a child under the guise of preserving the health of the mother goes against the language of Roe v. Wade. There the state is explicitly allowed to protect the child as well as the mother after the child becomes viable. In the last “trimester,” the state may even ban abortions. The problem is the overly broad interpretation of the term “health” which allows a professional abortionist total liberty to decide what is a danger to the health of the mother. Planned Parenthood would, of course, make all abortions ad liberum,
God bless you, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III.
Wisdom. Pure wisdom.
People who fail to understand this really aren't human. Much less, American.
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.
