Skip to comments.Supreme Court Partial Birth Abortion Case - "I'm Convinced Kennedy will vote with Us"
Posted on 11/08/2006 2:41:32 PM PST by wagglebee
WASHINGTON, November 8, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Moments after the hearing of oral arguments in the partial-birth abortion case before the United States Supreme Court today, a pro-life lawyer involved in the case is predicting a "major victory". Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), said that he is convinced the ban on partial birth abortion will be ruled constitutional.
The ACLJ has filed amicus briefs in both cases before the Supreme Court - including one on behalf of some 80 members of Congress - including the sponsors of the federal ban on the gruesome procedure.
In 2000, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to reject the state ban on partial-birth abortion by Nebraska. Now, the high court - with two new Justices - heard oral arguments in two cases challenging the federal ban on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. "Three of the Justices - Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas - already have compared this procedure to infanticide when the court rejected Nebraska's state ban six years ago," said Sekulow.
Since that time Bush appointees to the Supreme Court John Roberts and Samuel Alito have joined the court. Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor who supported striking down the Nebraska law banning partial-birth abortion.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Alito and Roberts are expected to vote in favour of the federal ban. While Kennedy has voted in favour of such a ban in the past, his vote is uncertain. However, after attending the hearings today, Sekulow said of Justice Kennedy, "Based on the questions that he asked and the answers that were given I am convinced that he will in fact stay with us and find the partial-birth abortion ban act constitutional."
Sekulow added: "The federal ban discussed today was the result of extensive Congressional hearings that produced a sound, constitutional solution to ending an abhorrent practice that is never medically necessary. The Solicitor General did an excellent job of presenting the government's case in support of the ban. We're hopeful that a majority of the Justices will conclude what most Americans already know: the federal ban on partial-birth abortion is a valid - indeed essential - barrier against infanticide."
Although the Justices voted this afternoon, a decision is not expected till June.
Kennedy was on the anti-abortion side in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000 case on the NE law), so, yeah, I'd be very surprised if (even) he were to "grow in office" so much in 6 years as to reverse his prior position.
Actions always speak louder than words! Don't get ahead of yourself.
We need it. A lot of kool-aid drinking is going on here today.
This analysis here suggests just the opposite: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1735104/posts
"Kennedy vote in play" just before your post.
I'll believe when I see it.
If it happens, I'll cheer then.
Arrrggghhh. ya beat me to it!
This is a horrible thing to say, but if this is supported by the powers that be, the judgement on the US will be well deserved, and I personally hope plenty of liberal young women partake.
We have come to this in my lifetime. I don't know how health care people who claim to care so much can actually do this.
Kennedy will strike down the ban. count on it.
Kennedy is an intellectual pillow, whatever head he cradled last is the form he takes.
Ironic that this should happen today, but great news nevertheless, if the Justices decide to overturn the federal ban on this disgusting procedure - which certainly can be compared to infanticide.
This entire debate absolutely sickens me. Knowing what abortion does to a baby...and that's just "regular abortion"...how it burns their skin and chops them into little pieces to be sucked out with a vacuum...
But this. So-called "partial" birth abortion. Here we have justices discussing exactly at what point out of a mother's womb is it murder.
What has happened to America's soul that this is even a question?
I'm almost in tears writing this.
I like Sekulow, but he seems far too optimistic about these sorts of things. If you'll remember, he was wholeheartedly behind Miers, as he seems to be for any Republican appointee. These free passes have left us with 33 years of legal murder.
This happens THOUSANDS of times a year. It is a horrendously brutal act of violence. It is not only MURDER, but a crime against humanity.
Illustration of partial-birth abortion performed
at 24 weeks gestational age.
Letter from Anthony P. Levatino, M.D., J.D., former abortionist, explaining that the images shown above "accurately depict" the partial-birth abortion method, and that "the images are size-appropriate to a fetus of approximately 24 weeks gestation."
From the dismal darkness..comes some good news...and I believe the catastrophe will only unleash an enlightened GOP.
I've said a little prayer that God prevail upon the hearts of these people and save the little babies. I hope others will do the same.
Praying. Don't have much hope left today, but praying.
catch the Devilish Detail
"SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL -BIRTH ABORTIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 73 the following:
`CHAPTER 74--PARTIAL -BIRTH ABORTIONS
`1531. Partial -birth abortions prohibited.
`Sec. 1531. Partial -birth abortions prohibited
`(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial -birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial -birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."
`(b) As used in this section--
`(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion--
`(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
Did you catch the Devilish Detail?
Sec.1531 instructs the "doctor" to make sure and kill the child before "in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother". Or "in the case of breech presentation", make sure the child is killed before "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother".
All a Pro-Abortion physician has to do is to unilaterally "declare" that the mother's life is in danger if a Partial Birth Abortion is not performed. As has been demonstrated so often during the past 40 years, this declaration does not have to contain any kernel of truth for a physician to make the claim. The physician makes the false claim, the procedure is carried out, and the clinic makes a lot of money selling the baby's brains and other body parts!
"Pro-lifers: Partial-birth ban 'a waste' ", WorldNetDaily, 6/6/03, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32955
Justices Have Pointed Abortion Discourse
WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court justices Wednesday sharply questioned attorneys on both sides of the legal battle over what opponents call partial-birth abortions as the high court weighed whether to uphold Congress's ban on the procedure.
In an intense morning of arguments, lawyers for the Bush administration and supporters of abortion rights gave starkly contrasting views: A law passed by Congress labels it a gruesome and inhumane practice. Supporters argue that such abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy sometimes are the safest for women.
A man in the audience began shouting midway through the proceedings, disrupting the hearing briefly before police dragged him away.
Seven justices took part in questioning both sides about whether the court should defer to congressional findings that these abortions are never medically necessary. Abortion advocates disagree, saying there is strong medical evidence to the contrary.
Justice Samuel Alito, hearing his first abortion cases since joing the court earlier this year, sat silently through two hours of arguments. Justice Clarence Thomas was sick and did not attend, Chief Justice John Roberts announced.
"We have no evidence in the record" as to how often such a situation arises? Roberts asked.
"No, your honor," replied attorney Priscilla Smith, who argued for striking down the federal law.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned the rationale that abortion opponents are using in the case, pointing out that the assertion that partial-birth abortion is a particularly gruesome procedure also could apply to the most commonly used method of abortion in the second trimester.
"I don't think so, Justice Ginsburg," Solicitor General Paul Clement replied.
Ginsburg asked whether the procedures in the two types of abortions are "basically the same," making it hard to distinguish whether a doctor could be prosecuted for performing the banned method.
"I just don't think the record supports" that notion, Clement responded.
At issue is the fate of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003.
Six federal courts on both coasts and in the Midwest have struck down the law as an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion that the Supreme Court established in its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973.
A day earlier, abortion was on several state ballots. In South Dakota, voters repealed a state law that virtually outlaws abortions, an issue that itself could end up before the court.
California and Oregon voters rejected measures that would have required that teenagers get their parents' consent before having an abortion.
A long line of people hoping for a seat inside stretched across the court's plaza hours before the session was to begin. Dozens of people camped through a rainy night in Washington to ensure their place near the head of the line.
Partial-birth abortion is not a medical term, but abortion opponents say it accurately describes "a rarely used and gruesome late-term abortion procedure that resembles infanticide," as Solicitor General Paul Clement said in court papers. Clement will argue the case for the administration.
Abortion-rights proponents dispute almost every aspect of the government's case, including the name for the procedure. They say the law has a much broader reach than the government claims and would threaten almost all abortions that take place after the third month of pregnancy.
Doctors most often refer to the procedure as a dilation and extraction or an intact dilation and evacuation abortion. It involves partially extracting a fetus from the uterus, then cutting or crushing its skull.
The procedure appears to take place most often in the middle third of pregnancy. There are a few thousand such abortions, according to rough estimates, out of more than 1.25 million abortions in the United States annually. Ninety percent of all abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not at issue.
By a 5-4 vote, the court invalidated a similar law in Nebraska in 2000 because it encompassed other abortion methods and did not contain an exception that would allow the procedure to preserve a woman's health, an underpinning of Supreme Court abortion rulings.
Two things have changed in the past six years, the composition of the court and Congress' involvement in the issue by tailoring a law to overcome the objections raised by justices in the Nebraska case.
Abortion opponents are optimistic the court will uphold the law because Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, part of the majority in the 2000 case, has retired and her place was taken by Justice Samuel Alito.
Bush appointed both Roberts and Alito, and most legal analysts believe that neither man will be especially supportive of abortion rights.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing voter following O'Connor's departure, dissented so strongly in the Nebraska case that many court observers believe he is unlikely to switch sides.
The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.
On the Net:
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
She is correct. Both are acts of violence that every fat and happy American must see if they want to continue its legality.
Kennedy flipped sides in the Casey decision. He first joined the prolifers, but before the opinion was written flipped to the abortion side.
So I will believe it when I see it.
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
I am fed up with this notion of abortion as the constant and human life as the variable. 33 years. They never lose anything. They are spoiled brats who ALWAYS get their own way.
Some great news in an otherwise gloomy day.
It's horrible, isn't it? And they aren't even brave enough to admit that this procedure is done as birth control. Hell in England they consider a cleft palate reason enough to kill a late term baby.
With the dems in power expect more tries at laws to help those pesky seniors on to the next life.
**Supreme Court Partial Birth Abortion Case - "I'm Convinced Kennedy will vote with Us"**
Straight to God's ears please, Lord!
I had a cousin with a cleft palate. Funny as hell.
You can put me in the "I'll believe it when I see it" column.
Roe v Wade has been around now for almost 34 years. With the exception some minor "inconveniences" such as parental notification and waiting periods, infanticide is just as legal in the U.S. as it was 33+ years ago. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Actually, I'm not even that optimistic. I expect that infanticide in the U.S. will become illegal about one month after the last clinic closes it's doors for lack of business.
I know conservatives are in a gloomy mood right now. I actually have a great deal of hope for the future of conservatism and I do think that we will eventually rid our country of infanticide. I just don't place much hope in the same courts that handed us Roe v Wade in the first place.
ping. We can pray for the Court to be W's true legacy.
"Ignoring substantial medical and ethical opinion, the Court substitutes its own judgment for the judgment of Nebraska and some 30 other States and sweeps the law away. The Courts holding stems from misunderstanding the record, misinterpretation of Casey, outright refusal to respect the law of a State, and statutory construction in conflict with settled rules. The decision nullifies a law expressing the will of the people of Nebraska that medical procedures must be governed by moral principles having their foundation in the intrinsic value of human life, including life of the unborn. Through their law the people of Nebraska were forthright in confronting an issue of immense moral consequence. The State chose to forbid a procedure many decent and civilized people find so abhorrent as to be among the most serious of crimes against human life, while the State still protected the womans autonomous right of choice as reaffirmed in Casey. The Court closes its eyes to these profound concerns.
"From the decision, the reasoning, and the judgment, I dissent."
How is partial birth abortion even debatable? What a horrible world we live in.
Look at the uproar over Terri Schiavo.
I don't think the two cases are very similar.
I do. Terri was conscious while she was starved and dehydrated to death, this was unimaginably inhumane and it drew on for weeks. So yes, I think it is very similar to partially delivering a baby in order to murder it.
I don't because I'd prefer to be starved than live like that. That's quite different from killing a baby simply because you don't want your own baby. However I tend to think that the women that get abortions are not exactly nice women. That's as euphemistic as I can get.
A great many people would not want to live the way that Terri was; however, Terri didn't get to make that decision. Terri was very possibly in her condition as the result of domestic violence on the part of her husband and he didn't "remember" anything about her "wanting to die" until years after the fact (around the same time he started a new family and fathered children out of wedlock and also when he figured out that he would be much better off financially with her dead) and NONE OF HER FRIENDS OR RELATIVES ever remembered her saying anything like this. And even if Terri had made such a remark, the reality is that most people who say they don't want to be kept alive are talking about extraordinary life support measures like ventilators, feeding tubes have been used for hundreds of years (granted, early on the doctors had no way to deal with infections that developed).
The unfortunate reality is that these women have been convinced by the left that selfishness is their right.
- Don't like your breasts? Get new ones.
- Don't like your husband? Get a divorce.
- Don't like the mole on your cheek? Get it removed.
- Don't want to have the baby you're carrying? Kill it.
Once you tell people that they can do whatever they want, it becomes a very slippery slope.
A female manager where I work just had a baby. Everyone celebrated for her and congratulated her and it was all so sweet. Now she is back to work, of course, and the child...daycare. Makes me sick. My wife stayed home with our 8 kids.
A lot of this is also a byproduct of selfishness. If a couple in their 20s or early 30s are convinced that they "deserve" a 4000 square foot house with a $50,000 audio-video system and a swimming pool, and they "deserve" two new luxury cars or SUVs every two years, then chances are that they will both need to work to pay for them. Once they move into their new neighborhood, they realize that everyone else has children, so they decide they need them too.
People look back at past generations and wonder how they got by with larger families on one income. The simple answer is that they had a lot less overhead -- houses were smaller, second cars were not as common (third cars were almost unheard of), etc. When a couple is able to decide that the priority is going to be raising a family in a stable home with Judeo-Christian values, they will eventually understand that this is ultimately far more rewarding than simply aquiring material possessions.
So, have you told her how much you disapprove of her actions? >:)
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.