Ruling on deportation mystifies abortion foes (unborn child US citizen with Const. rights-what?)

The Kansas City Star ^ | 6-6-04 | DONALD BRADLEY

[cpforlife.org]

Judge let pregnant woman stay in U.S.

By DONALD BRADLEY

The Kansas City Star

Abortion opponents got a surprise when federal Judge Scott O. Wright refused to deport a pregnant Raymore woman last month.

He was talking their talk.

Wright ruled that the government could not send Myrna Dick back to Mexico, because her unborn child was an American citizen with constitutional rights. As such, the baby was entitled to stay in the country.

Anti-abortion forces have been using a similar argument since the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion in 1973: A fetus is a human being and worthy of constitutional protection.

The irony is that Wright often has been at odds with abortion opponents during his 25 years as a federal judge. They have accused him of legislating abortion rights from the bench.

How, a Missouri lawmaker wondered last week, can Wright block a ban on partial-birth abortion one day and rule that a fetus is an American citizen another day?

“How does he possibly reconcile these two positions?” asked state Rep. Ed Emery, a Lamar Republican and an ardent abortion opponent who has called for Wright's impeachment. “I would be very interested to hear his explanation.”

Simple, Wright said: “I go by the law.”

Besides the rights of the unborn, the Mryna Dick case also has touched on the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the high-profile Scott Peterson murder trial, now under way in California.

And the man with the gavel is the 80-year-old Wright, a World War II-era aviator who once denounced the country's war on drugs as “absolutely destroying our inner-city communities.” The judge has railed against racial profiling, the loosening of search-and-seizure laws and a school district's ban on students wearing hair in cornrows.

A fan of Minnie Pearl and Roy Acuff, Wright once wrote that one of his most interesting cases was whether the Grand Ole Opry had exclusive copyright to the word “opry.”

He ruled it did not.

Few would deny that Wright is legally savvy, but abortion opponents say he is a liberal who needs to go.

In 1999, Wright issued a temporary restraining order against a ban on partial-birth abortion. Last year he blocked a Missouri law that required a 24-hour waiting period before someone could get an abortion.

In April, Emery presented a resolution to the Missouri House asking the U.S. Congress to impeach Wright because of his abortion rulings. Emery said then that Wright had ruled in favor of abortion rights in every case before him.

The resolution never made it out of committee.

Now comes the Myrna Dick case.

Dick, 29, immigrated to the United States as a young girl and has spent most of her life here. She is married to an American citizen and is pregnant with the couple's first child.

Dick had kept her work permit current and had sought permanent resident status. But in April, when she went to immigration offices to renew her work permit, authorities arrested her. They accused her of claiming false American citizenship during a 1998 border crossing, a violation punishable by immediate and permanent removal from the country.

Dick denied the allegation and hired attorneys. They argue that she was caught up in heightened security measures put in place after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Shortly before she was to be put on a plane to Mexico, Wright issued a stay and ordered both sides to appear in court.

During that May 27 hearing, Dick's attorney, Rekha Sharma-Crawford, challenged the government's evidence that Dick was the person involved in the 1998 border crossing. Sharma-Crawford asked why the government would wait all these years to arrest Dick if they knew her identity.

Jeffrey P. Ray, an assistant U.S. attorney, countered that the government had solid evidence against Dick, including fingerprints. Ray asked that the stay be lifted so that Dick could be deported.

Wright denied the request, saying the government had no grounds to deport Dick's unborn baby. He asked the gender of the baby and from then on referred to it as “he.”

Then, Wright mentioned Scott Peterson, who is charged with killing his pregnant wife, Laci, and the couple's unborn son. The case led to the passage earlier this year of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also known as “Laci and Conner's Law.”

The act basically grants unborn children equal protection under the law.

When Mary Kay Culp, executive director of Kansas for Life and former head of Missouri Right to Life, first heard about Wright's ruling, she wondered whether the judge was trying to discredit the new law.

Abortion-rights groups had fought the measure, even though it contained an exception for abortion.

“They didn't want any law that included the notion that the unborn is a human, because they lied about that for 30 years,” Culp said.

The national Planned Parenthood Federation of America had argued that the law did nothing to protect pregnant women or punish their assailants. President Gloria Feldt said the law was a deceptive anti-choice strategy to undermine Roe v. Wade.

Peter Brownlie, president of Planned Parenthood in Kansas and Mid-Missouri, declined to comment on the Myrna Dick case.

Culp said that if Wright was sincere in his recent decision, “then he has a whole lot of cases he needs to reverse.”

Wright said he typically did not comment on pending cases, but he denied any motivation beyond the law in the Dick case.

In court, he said that if Scott Peterson could be charged with the murder of an unborn child, then the government could not deport an unborn child who had done nothing wrong.

But then what about abortion?

Wright, citing the abortion exception in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, said the new law did not contradict Roe v. Wade.

“I'm against abortion, personally, but I feel like it's a woman's choice,” Wright said.

“And we still have Roe versus Wade. As long as it's on the books, then that's the law.”

[Calpernia]

As can the right. Any lawyers here?

[Calpernia]

BUMP!!!!!

How do we make it happen?

[Not A Snowbird]

Now wait just a second. The baby is not yet born, it is merely "present" in the United States (like so many other illegals.) Until it's actually born, it's citizenship is unknown. Yes, it's a person, so don't start on me about abortion rights, but it's citizenship cannot be determined until it actually is born somewhere. Anywhere.

By keeping her in the country, this judge is guaranteeing the baby will be born in the United States. Frankly, I think the judge screwed up.

[cpforlife.org]

FYI--There is no such thing as a "fertilized egg".

At fertilization the egg and sperm cease to be. They become a one celled blastocyst with the same DNA that life will have till he/she dies. Be it at 93 years or 93 minutes. At this one cell stage the sex is known, as well as all the info that can be gotten from a DNA test on you or me.

[Calpernia]

Personally, I don't think law is about logic. It has become a fancy dance contest.

BUT, I see this as an advantage to make the unborn citizens under the judges own logic (irony).

How do we do it?

[NRA2BFree]

Pure, undiluted insanity.

Thanks for the ping! This judge needs to step down or be Impeached. He clearly can't perform his duties properly. I've heard of judges ruling against each other, but I've never heard of a judge ruling against himself. LOL Yep, I would say it's past time for him to go. ;-)

[jwalsh07]

It don't get much worse than this from your profession.

To summarise the Judges position:

You can kill them but you can't deport them. (shaking my head dolefully from side to side)

[BipolarBob]

How come a woman has the right to decide to kill her child and I dont have the right to decide whether or not I wear a seat belt?

Follow the money trail. You have insurance companies (and spineless politicians) to thank for the seat belt laws. As far as this judge's ruling - a clear case of moral dyslexia.

[CounterCounterCulture]

(unborn child US citizen with Const. rights-what?)

They have a right not to be murdered, just like any other visitor/tourist. It's simple.

If it's a case where deportation would result in murder (e.g., China's one-child policy), then that's a little different and amnesty can be examined.

[gitmo]

Day 1--Fertilization Check

Early in the morning, the eggs are checked for signs of fertilization. At this time, normally fertilized eggs will have 2 nuclei in the center, one from the egg and one from the sperm. (as shown below)

 

Any number of nuclei greater or lesser than 2 indicates abnormal fertilization. Normally fertilized eggs are now considered to be embryos, and are separated from the unfertilized and abnormally fertilized eggs.

Strong Health

---

I know when I took Embryology, Cellular Biology, and Comparative Anatomy the term fertilized egg was acceptable.

[Askel5]

=== However it does offer some fuel (low-yeild) for the lifers.


I'm tired of having them perpetually deluded.

Look! Another unicorn!!

[sc2_ct]

As happy as I am to see live legally defined as occuring before birth, I am a bit concerned, since it was my impression that citizenship was only granted if the child was born in the US??? I hope I'm wrong on that point though :)

[kdot]

Good point! Why isn't the GOP making waves with these headlines. They are no-brainers for *most* repubs and Bush could use them to reinforce his moral convictions. Additionally, Kerry will have to be ambiguous which will further define his flip-floppiness. Bush looks strong - Kerry weak.

GOP? Hello? At least have someone ask him the questions on the record.

[PISANO]

So, REMOVING the CHILD from America violates the CHILD'S rights, but that SAME CHILD is allowed to have a pair of scissors jammed into the base of his skull, and a tube inserted into the hole and have it's brains sucked out and skull collapsed so he can be REMOVED from his mother?

I must be living n a nightmare!

[cpforlife.org]

Yes. It is used throughout literature, but has been frequently misused as a politicized phrase meant to dehumanize the unborn; much the same way the secular humanists redefined the beginning of pregnancy from the moment of conception to several days later at implantation. It is semantic gymnastics.

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:hLEqZhOUACUJ:www.gateway.org/content/pdf/pill.pdf+no+such+thing+as+a+%22fertilized+egg%22&hl=en

There is no such thing as a fertilized egg; there is a unique human being who results from the union of sperm and egg. (2) Conception is the same as fertilization, and when it occurs, pregnancy has begun. (Reading: "Emergency Contraception,"http://www.owt.com/ppcw/mornaftr.html)

[cpforlife.org]

You ARE living in a nightmare. It began 1-22-73. It's end cannot be seen.

[LauraJean]

I don't know but it certainly does look promising. While I don't like illegal immigrants I think we should take what is offered to us. If the judge is not overturned, this gives us some sort of legal standing in at least that court. This can be used in federal court as part of the legal research in overturning Roe vs Wade
I would really love to see a civil rights case made for the unborn. Darn it those babies deserve at least as much protection as turtle eggs.

[Calpernia]

>>>>I would really love to see a civil rights case made for the unborn.

Since I'm not a democrat....how is a civil rights case done? (yes being a wise gal...well not really)

Are there papers to file? Does it have to be done in the same state as this judge? Since the judge set the precedent with this citizenship ruling, now would be the time to use it.

It would also stop any alternative intentions like another freeper mentioning INS issues.

[KfromMich]

As happy as I am to see live legally defined as occuring before birth, I am a bit concerned, since it was my impression that citizenship was only granted if the child was born in the US??? I hope I'm wrong on that point though :)

From the article, it sounds like the baby's father is an American citizen, which would mean the that the baby automatically becomes a citizen, whether he is born here or not.

[LauraJean]

I am not sure how it can be done but I know it can. There are enough state laws dealing with the unborn as a seperate entity that One of the laws I am thinking of are the drug laws dealing with pregnant women.
What I don't know is if it could be done with a specific plantiff or if it could be done as a class action suit.
As far as where it could be done I think there is some leeway. If it is a Federal court I think it can be done anywhere in that Federal district. Howeve from what I remember from my legal research class years ago any lawyer can use this ruling in any courthouse. It would have less ''standing'' in other jurisdictions but it would be considered good law.
I am not a lawyer but I did take some classes when I thought I might like to be a paralegal. If any lawyer is reading this I apologize in advance for any mistakes that I may have made in my logic or understanding of the law.