Posted on 06/28/2011 11:56:26 AM PDT by GonzoII
Federal judge: life begins at conception
by Kathleen Gilbert
Tue Jun 28 1:04 PM EST
INDIANAPOLIS, June 28, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Planned Parenthood’s request to block a provision of an Indiana law that requires doctors to tell women who are seeking abortions that “human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm,” was denied by U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt last week.
“Plaintiffs contend that in the context of abortion, the meaning of these words, both individually and in combination, represent a plethora of opinions and beliefs about life and its inception. The Court respectfully disagrees,” wrote Pratt.
“When read together, the language crafted by the legislature in this provision supports a finding that the mandated statement refers exclusively to a growing organism that is a member of the Homo sapiens species.”
The judge disagreed with Planned Parenthood’s suggestion that the phrasing was “misleading.”
“Here, the mandated statement states only a biological fact relating to the development of the living organism; therefore, it may be reasonably read to provide accurate, non-misleading information to the patient,” the court wrote. “Under Indiana law, a physician must disclose the facts and risks of a treatment which a reasonably prudent physician would be expected to disclose under like circumstances, and which a reasonable person would want to know.”
Planned Parenthood of Indiana (PPIN) had also sought an injunction against another part of the same law, House Enrolled Act (HEA) 1210, which barred federal Medicaid funds from going to the abortion provider. Pratt granted that request, noting that the Obama administration had threatened to gut the state’s entire Medicaid allotment to save PPIN’s portion.
Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society, praised the judge for upholding scientific fact, but said that they would continue to ensure that the measure defunding Planned Parenthood goes into effect.
“While this is a significant partial victory for Life, we will press on to ensure that the full law will go into effect to defund Planned Parenthood in Indiana,” Brejcha said. “We stand ready to defend Life in other states as they plan to defund Planned Parenthood and require doctors to tell women that life begins at conception.”
Copyright © 2010 LifeSiteNews.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
Breaking News?
human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm
If this case goes to SCOTUS (appeal of blocking Planned Parenthood funding), it might be grounds to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Or is this wishful thinking?
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Wow! That will probably embarrass them into not committing murder. /sarc
I’d rather have this decided in legislation.
One judge says this, the other one says that. Nothing gets decided.
It WAS legislated that the language be included. The judgement is that the language is accurate and not misleading.
It was and the judge backed it. The way things aught to be when legislation is commonsensible.
That is exactly what happened. The judge upheld the legislation.
It is decided by neither legislatures or judges, it is simple biological fact. And it can be found in any embryology text. Human life begins at conception. That is the science of the matter.
It gets better than that.
It would not just overturn Roe, it would END ABORTION (e.g. none of this let the states decide BS).
The majority opinion in Roe itself acknowledges that once personhood for the unborn is established that the unborn would automatically enjoy 14th Amendment rights.
Which means that Roe v Wade is as Constitutionally supportable as Dred Scott is. Roe v Wade flies directly in the face of the 14th Amendment, and SCOTUS knows it, though they are unwilling to publicly admit it...
the infowarrior
Thus, the "it's just a bunch of cells" gibberish. The reality is too harsh for the 'culture of death' crowd to bear...
the infowarrior
A big Yup. The progressives are continually trying to state as scientific fact those political points of view that they want foisted on the population. I sure would like to get back to absolute scientific fact determination.
It's one thing to accept that you're going to make decisions that are based on political considerations rather than science - this is what an informed public and their representatives could and should do; it's certainly another when you state political positions on issues - falsely - as scientific fact in an attempt to mislead the voting public - which is what our so-called representatives continue to do.
Of course but if you think the court will overturn Roe any time soon, despite it being awful law, you’re a lot more optimistic than I am. But optimism is good!
Well, in a way. SCOTUS can always define a class of homicide that is both exempt from prosecution and available only to women. In order to avoid being so obviously full of chit, though, they'll rule that every pregnancy should end in abortion unless both the father and the mother want the child to be born. /sarc
Which is worse than Roe. And completely contrary to the Constitution's requirements.
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.""No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
Even Blackmun admitted, in the Roe majority opinion, that if the fetus is a person, OF COURSE they are protected by the explicit imperative provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."
Look how they act on the Wisconsin Supreme Court ~ willing to kill another member of the court and then get together and lie about it.
It'd be the same at the USSC ~ probably have Ginsburg wear a suicide vest to work some day and BANG ~ all of 'em gone and Obama free to appoint 9 Commies.
I'm not optimistic at all. "Dred Scott" was never officially overturned by the court. It took civil war, and a Constitutional Amendment to rectify that. No, I'm even less optimistic than you are...
the infowarrior
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.