Skip to comments.Supreme Court to Expand Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Review
Posted on 06/19/2006 5:25:40 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 19, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) The Supreme Court is set to revisit a second Bush Administration appeal that seeks to reinstate a ban on partial birth abortion, reports the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).
The ACLJ, which specializes in constitutional law, said it is pleased the Supreme Court has decided to hear the case, which involves the constitutionality of the national ban on partial-birth abortion.
The Supreme Court took a significant step today that clearly puts the issue of partial-birth abortion front-and-center, said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, which litigates pro-life issues. By taking a second case involving the constitutionality of the national ban on partial-birth abortion, the Supreme Court puts the spotlight on one of the most horrific medical procedures in existence today. The high court not only will determine whether Congress acted appropriately in enacting the ban, but the high court also has a critical opportunity to bring to an end once and for all the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. Taking a second case clearly elevates one of the most culturally significant issues of our time. The stakes are high and we are very pleased that the Supreme Court now has two opportunities to abolish what can only be described as infanticide.
In 2000, five justices of the Supreme Court, including retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, ruled that the abortion right originally created in Roe v. Wade allows an abortionist to perform a partial-birth abortion any time he sees a 'health' benefit, even if the woman and her unborn baby are entirely healthy. (Stenberg v. Carhart, June 28, 2000). This ruling struck down the ban on partial-birth abortion that had been enacted by Nebraska, and rendered unenforceable the similar bans that more than half the states had enacted.
Nevertheless, in 2003 Congress approved and President Bush signed a national law, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. When he signed the ban, the President called partial-birth abortion "a terrible form of violence [that] has been directed against children who are inches from birth."
The federal law has faced legal challenges in three different federal circuits, and its enforcement has been blocked by court orders. Federal district courts in all three circuits ruled that the federal law violated the 2000 Supreme Court ruling. In all three cases the adverse judgments were affirmed by the appellate courts.
The ACLJ has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court representing 78 members of Congress and more than 320,000 Americans asking the high court to uphold the constitutionality of the national ban on partial-birth abortion in a case out of Nebraska.
In its brief filed in the Nebraska case, the ACLJ asserts: Partial birth procedures represent the beachhead of this assault on postnatal life, the bridge between abortion and infanticide. Absent strong legal barriers and vigorous societal condemnation, partial birth procedures open the way to legal infanticide.
It'll be the first real look at how Roberts and Alito approach the issue.
Yes, they're both about to be put to the test.
There is only one type of person who favors the legality of partial birth abortion with full knowledge of what it is.
infant life bump!
Yep. Given Roberts' desire that there be broad agreement (if at all possible), it will be interesting to see how narrow any decision that comes out of this case will be.
They need to film the vile proceedure and enter it into evidence.
Shock them into reality.
The key is what the CINO Kennedy will do.
I hope Alito and Roberts comes through.
Dear Father, be a presence among those on our Supreme Court that this blight of abortion would soon end. Amen!
Just no excuse for this in a civilized society
Bump! for the Supreme Court to overturn the 2000 decision.
One of those monsters is Rudy Giuliani.
Does Rudy have an updated position on the issue of partial birth abortion, or does he still hold to his "no limits on abortion" stance from the 1990's?
This will show us what the court is made of.
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.