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.
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? >:)
Wow! If that happens, I can easily forecast the anti-Catholic rhetoric from the liberal left, since that group of 5 judges are all Catholics. We have hearad nothing yet compared to what is to come if this transpires. Oh well, it'll be good to have it out in the open, and for a very just cause.
Wagglebee yer preaching to the choir but that's ok. I posted about this touchy topic to you because I know we see things pretty similary. My wife and I gave up on a ton of things to have 8 kids. To the world doing that, like the gospel itself, is foolishness. The people you describe are perfectly willing to trust the Lord, after they set themselves up the way they want. Unlike me, they also have really nice neighbors so loving their neighbor as they love themselves never seems like much of a challenge too. Not true in my neighborhood of 100 year old houses.
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.
It's amazing that the richest generation of all times thinks you can't get buy on a single income of 30K/year. When had our 4th, 14 years ago, I was making 10.50 an hr and that was our total family income.
Thanks for posting.
I might as well walk around with a "the 19th amendment stinks" shirt as say that in this place.
So it's peer pressure that's stopping you, not the fact that it's her own business? Ok. :)
Personally, I think we're in for a nasty surprise on this one--a surprise which may lead to the formation of a viable social conservative 3rd party...
Many opinions need not be shared.
I do not consider disabilities amusing.
The ridiculous thing is that most "honest" Constitutional scholars, both pro-life and pro-abortion, agree that Roe v. Wade is a horribly written ruling, especially to set precedent. In the absence of a Constitutional amendmentd, abortion should clearly be a matter for each state to decide legislatively.
My personal theory on what would work best would be for a pro-life (probably Catholic) politician to introduce an amendment that bans both abortion and capital punishment. This would be difficult for the pro-abortion crowd to get behind. I am personally in favor of capital punishment, but I think the time is soon approaching when it will be declared unconstitutional and I don't actually see where it is any more a deterrent than actual life in prison without parole.
Here on a message board where it's safe, not to people's faces, I see. :)
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.