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.
“Life begins at conception because it’s the only time it can.” - Rush
So Dred Scott was “settled law”?
So Dred Scott was “settled law”?
-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973
In short, Blackmun *knew* the decision was utterly unconstitutional on the face of it, a modern day Dred Scott, and supported that. History should not be kind to him, and he should fall into historical oblivion, even as Roger B. Taney did...
the infowarrior
http://www.equalprotectionforposterity.com/index.html
The Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution
A Resolution affirming vital existing constitutional protections for the unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from the first moment of creation until natural death.
WHEREAS, The first stated principle of the United States, in its charter, the Declaration of Independence, is the assertion of the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and that they are each endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, beginning with the right to life, and that the first purpose of all government is to defend that supreme right; and
WHEREAS, The first stated purposes of We the People of the United States in our Constitution are “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”; and
WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment, imperatively requires that all persons within the jurisdictions of all the States be afforded the equal protection of the laws; and
WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, explicitly forbids the taking of the life of any innocent person; and
WHEREAS, The practices of abortion and euthanasia violate every clause of the stated purposes of the United States Constitution, and its explicit provisions; and
WHEREAS, Modern science has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the individual human person’s physical existence begins at the moment of biological inception or creation; and
WHEREAS, All executive, legislative and judicial Officers in America, at every level and in every branch, have sworn before God to support the United States Constitution as required by Article VI of that document, and have therefore, because the Constitution explicitly requires it, sworn to protect the life of every innocent person;
THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HEREBY RESOLVE that the God-given, unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from biological inception or creation to natural death, be protected everywhere within every state, territory and jurisdiction of the United States of America; that every officer of the judicial, legislative and executive departments, at every level and in every branch, is required to use all lawful means to protect every innocent life within their jurisdictions; and that we will henceforth deem failure to carry out this supreme sworn duty to be cause for removal from public office via impeachment or recall, or by statutory or electoral means, notwithstanding any law passed by any legislative body within the United States, or the decision of any court, or the decree of any executive officer, at any level of governance, to the contrary.
In a word, yes. It did more to set the stage for the Civil War, than any other single event...
the infowarrior
The unspeakable horrors of human slavery in this country pale by comparison.
-- Thomas Jefferson"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."
"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was 'illegal.'"-- Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail
Given the current composition of the court, probably.
-- Thomas Jefferson
I too, tremble for my country, knowing that God's justice will not be denied...
the infowarrior
Oooooh, I see.
Courts decide individual cases which are brought before them, according to the Constitution and the laws which have been duly passed by the people's representatives. If they do more than that, they are outside their constitutional jurisdiction and should therefore be promptly removed from office.
Only the legislative branch, the representatives of the people, are authorized to make laws.
The United States ConstitutionArticle I
Section 1.
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
And, of course, if the legislative branch passes legislation that violates the Constitution, or the Natural Law, that too is lawless, having been done outside the lawful jurisdiction of any branch of government.
"A unjust law, is no law at all."-- Augustine of Hippo
What "this" conception? If that is what you are referring to, you're a bit too late on that one buddy, God already decided it.
Not a single one of the sitting “justices” on this supreme court is a personhood pro-lifer.
the infowarrior
If it wasn't living, then they wouldn't have to kill it.
Very important wording, imho.
The other part of the judge's ruling is illogical in the context of his first part. Without a congressional law that exempts this taking of life from the due process clause of the US Constitution, why should taxpayers be funding a private organization that performs homicidal procedures?
Congress has never had a chance to vote in favor of such a law, because they've been preempted by the courts.
I agree that many find war and police killings morally repugnant and the taking of life, but those instances are covered by law, not by judicial fiat.
In like news, North Carolina's Governor Bev Perdue vetoed a recent bill passed by the state legislature that would require a woman be given information about the current development of her baby, the risks associated with abortion and alternatives to abortion. She says she did this because she doesn't think it is right to impose upon a woman's relationship between her and her doctor. This is a pure, liberal knee-jerk reaction to ANYTHING that would stand in the way of on demand, anytime for any reason abortion. She KNOWS that most abortions are performed in clinics where the only time a woman even sees the doctor is when he enters the procedure room to do the dirty deed. He doesn't know her and she doesn't know him - unless she is a repeat customer. The only information she receives is from a “counselor” and not a doctor.
I am so tired of the empty rhetoric these politicians use to justify their far-left Liberal views. Hopefully, they will be a dying breed as more and more voters become better educated on this issue and those who genuinely respect life take their places. The right to life is the first of our unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, only people who respect this should represent us.
Of course the Courts have said that thre is no consensus when human life begins and personhood- which has been defined as having been born or in the process of being born
Do you agree with such nonsense?
The fact that the human person’s physical earthly existence begins at the moment of his or her biological inception or creation is scientifically so far beyond debate now that any argument to the contrary doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
That is true, but one step at a time, Roe V. Wade will be overturned. The camel's nose in the tent that permitted abortion on demand and at any time that we have today was the exception of rape, incest and mother's "health". The Doe vs. Bolton companion ruling to Roe defined health as virtually any reason where the woman might suffer anything from discomfort to financial problems, even being too young was found to qualify as health. Why this allowed what we have today is that it disallowed the rights of the developing human being. If he could be killed because he was inconvenient or because of how or when he was conceived, then there would be no rights whatsoever recognized for him. Abortion must be outlawed unless there is no other way to save the life of the mother and those cases should indeed be rare.
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.