Posted on 02/14/2003 11:05:32 AM PST by Remedy
Summary: Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) introduced legislation on February 13, 2003 to ban partial-birth abortion.
Ohio Congressman Steve Chabot introduced the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003" at a press conference on February 13, 2003. The bill is virtually identical to legislation Chabot introduced during the last session of Congress. It had passed the House by a strong vote of 274-151, but was blocked in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
In his press release, Chabot noted: "Partial-birth abortion is the termination of the life of a living baby just seconds before it takes its first breath outside the womb. The procedure is violent. It is gruesome. It is infanticide."
Chabot’s bill is designed to pass Supreme Court scrutiny when it is challenged in court by Planned Parenthood, NOW, and other groups that want unrestricted abortion on demand.
For more details on Chabot’s legislation, go to: Congressman Steve Chabot - Ohio 1st District
I am optimistic enough to believe that, one day, Stenberg v. Carhart will be assigned its rightful place in the history of this Court’s jurisprudence beside Korematsu and Dred Scott. The method of killing a human child–one cannot even accurately say an entirely unborn human child–proscribed by this statute is so horrible that the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion. And the Court must know (as most state legislatures banning this procedure have concluded) that demanding a "health exception"–which requires the abortionist to assure himself that, in his expert medical judgment, this method is, in the case at hand, marginally safer than others (how can one prove the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt?)–is to give live-birth abortion free rein. The notion that the Constitution of the United States, designed, among other things, "to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, . . . and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," prohibits the States from simply banning this visibly brutal means of eliminating our half-born posterity is quite simply absurd.
* * *
But the Court gives a second and independent reason for invalidating this humane (not to say anti-barbarian) law: That it fails to allow an exception for the situation in which the abortionist believes that this live-birth method of destroying the child might be safer for the woman. (As pointed out by Justice Thomas, and elaborated upon by Justice Kennedy, there is no good reason to believe this is ever the case, but–who knows?–it sometime might be.)
…It is a value judgment, dependent upon how much one respects (or believes society ought to respect) the life of a partially delivered fetus, and how much one respects (or believes society ought to respect) the freedom of the woman who gave it life to kill it. Evidently, the five Justices in today’s majority value the former less, or the latter more, (or both), than the four of us in dissent. Case closed. There is no cause for anyone who believes in Casey to feel betrayed by this outcome. It has been arrived at by precisely the process Casey promised–a democratic vote by nine lawyers, not on the question whether the text of the Constitution has anything to say about this subject (it obviously does not); nor even on the question (also appropriate for lawyers) whether the legal traditions of the American people would have sustained such a limitation upon abortion (they obviously would); but upon the pure policy question whether this limitation upon abortion is "undue"–i.e., goes too far.
…The most that we can honestly say is that we disagree with the majority on their policy-judgment-couched-as-law. And those who believe that a 5-to-4 vote on a policy matter by unelected lawyers should not overcome the judgment of 30 state legislatures have a problem, not with the application of Casey, but with its existence. Casey must be overruled.
While I am in an I-told-you-so mood, I must recall my bemusement, in Casey, at the joint opinion’s expressed belief that Roe v. Wade had "call[ed] the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution," Casey, 505 U.S., at 867, and that the decision in Casey would ratify that happy truce. It seemed to me, quite to the contrary, that "Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court in particular, ever since"; and that, "by keeping us in the abortion-umpiring business, it is the perpetuation of that disruption, rather than of any Pax Roeana, that the Court’s new majority decrees." Id., at 995—996. Today’s decision, that the Constitution of the United States prevents the prohibition of a horrible mode of abortion, will be greeted by a firestorm of criticism–as well it should. I cannot understand why those who acknowledge that, in the opening words of Justice O’Connor’s concurrence, "[t]he issue of abortion is one of the most contentious and controversial in contemporary American society," ante, at 1, persist in the belief that this Court, armed with neither constitutional text nor accepted tradition, can resolve that contention and controversy rather than be consumed by it. If only for the sake of its own preservation, the Court should return this matter to the people–where the Constitution, by its silence on the subject, left it–and let them decide, State by State, whether this practice should be allowed. Casey must be overruled.
Some abortion advocates are willing to concede that unborn children are human beings. Surprisingly enough, they claim that they would still be able to justify abortion. According to their argument, no person-no unborn child-has a right to access the bodily resources of an unwilling host. Unborn children may have a right to life, but that right to life ends where it encroaches upon a mother's right to bodily autonomy. The argument is called the bodyright argument, and it is refuted in the following essays...
Why would it be wrong to kill an adult? Why would it be wrong to kill a baby after it has been born? Questions like these seems trivial, but their answers are extremely important to the abortion debate. What many people fail to realize is that most of the arguments used to justify killing unborn children could be used with just as much force to justify killing newborn children and, in some cases, even full-grown adults. The wrongness of killing is discussed in the following essays...
As if overturning the common conception of infancy weren't enough, scientists are creating a startling new picture of intelligent life in the womb. Among the revelations:
The Emerging Reality of Fetal Pain in Late Abortion The disturbing concept that an unborn child feels pain while being destroyed has once again entered the public conscience in England, when a pro-choice fetal researcher suggested that anesthesia should be given to comfort the fetus from pain from abortions as early as 17 weeks gestation.
ABCNEWS.com : New Ultrasound Gives Womb With a View As early as the seventh week of pregnancy, they provide a window parents have never had, and an early opportunity to bond.
The scan provides completely different information from the 2-D black and white ultrasound images that all women are offered at 12 and 20 weeks of pregnancy," said Stuart Campbell, head of obstetrics and gynecology at St. George's Hospital Medical School. "The 2-D scan is excellent at showing the structure of the internal organs but the [more-detailed scan] gives better views of the surface features.
The Use of Graphic Photos of Aborted Children in the Public Forum Ephesians 5:11 states "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." The large graphic photos expose the heinous truth about abortion in an unsurpassed way. Unlike other modern social movements, the media has been unwilling to take images of injustice against the unborn to the public. Pro-life activists have struggled one city, one neighborhood, one person at a time to expose the grim truth about the plight of the unborn. The large graphic photos are a crucial tool, which has successfully allowed Christians to fulfill the Biblical mandate to expose evil.
The Silent Scream A Realtime ultrasound video tape and movie of a 12-week suction abortion is commercially available as, The Silent Scream, narrated by Dr. B. Nathanson, a former abortionist. It dramatically, but factually, shows the pre-born baby dodging the suction instrument time after time, while its heartbeat doubles in rate. When finally caught, its body being dismembered, the baby's mouth clearly opens wide - hence, the title (available from American Portrait Films, P.O. Box 19266, Cleveland, OH 44119, 216-531-8600). Proabortionists have attempted to discredit this film. A well documented paper refuting their charges is available from National Right to Life, 419 7th St. NW, Washington, DC 20004.
After showing this film to thousands of women contemplating an abortion, we can testify to its powerful impact on them to choose life for their preborn child.
Click Here to See What Abortion Looks Like From the inception of his pro-life work, Fr. Frank Pavone has been urging the mass media to show the American people what an abortion is. Abortion is a reality which is so horrific that words alone can never convey its meaning.
CBR / Abortion Pictures The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) is working to establish prenatal justice and the right to life for the unborn, the disabled, the infirm, the aged and all vulnerable peoples through education and the development of cutting edge educational resources.
Abortion Videos
I still don't trust O'Connor
A Word About Honesty
One last introductory thought. Before we go further, we must ask ourselves a critical question: Are we interested in what is true and right, or are we merely interested in what is not disturbing or inconvenient?
Here is the reason I ask. I have made an observation based on hundreds of conversations with people on tough moral issues. Few are really interested in doing what is right. This may seem like a strong statement, but in the course of conversation it becomes obvious. Sure, they give reasons for their views, convincing even themselves that they have a genuine interest in morality. Their true colors show, however, when their reasons turn out to be bad ones. They fish around for other justifications. They begin twisting the facts to fit their views. They reject or ignore contrary points instead of refuting them.
As their options diminish, their search becomes more frantic. It soon becomes clear they never had any intention of being ethical at all. Their justifications were only rationalizations all along. Instead of changing their opinions and, ultimately, their conduct, they become angry. Stripped of the appearance of being moral, they leave mad, still bent on doing what they intended to do in the first place.
Why do people do that? Because the moral demands of the truth are often an unpleasant burden to bear. When self-interest is at stake, we change the rules. We resort to contorted, disfigured arguments. We attack individuals rather than ideas. We take refuge behind the claim that the question is complicated when it is not difficult at all. In the end we fire our final salvo, "It is my right!" The last refuge of the libertine.
We who are interested in what is true, however, let our judgments rest on the evidence. When the facts go against what we want, we make the difficult choice for the right reasons. We remain loyal to what is true and good, not to what's convenient.
This is true for me as a pro-lifer. I and virtually every other pro-lifer will abandon the fight if the unborn is not a human person worthy of protection just like every other human being.
Generally speaking, we're not interested in snooping around bedrooms, arbitrarily restricting freedoms or passing laws because of deep-seated bigotry or a devious desire to control private choices. We are concerned because abortion may possibly take the life of an innocent human person simply because the child in the way and can not defend itself.
But how do we know? By answering the only important question in the abortion controversy: What is the unborn? What-or who-is in the womb? Virtually every other question dissipates once you resolve this critical issue. Once answered, we will know what is right. Whether we will do what's right is another issue. * Greg Koukl is the radio talk show host for the program "Stand To Reason". Arguments For The Humanness Of A Fetus Michigan Theological Seminary, Journal Of Christian Apologetics, JCA 1:1 (Summer 1997) 94
Here is one of the (to my mind) greatest philosophers produced by England in the last century, telling people-especially other philosophers-that sometimes it is better to walk away than to argue. Why? Because a person's conscience can become so corrupt, and lead to such equally corrupt rationalizations, that to engage them in serious argument about those rationalizations is both pointless-being unlikely to have the slightest impact on their thinking-and, what is worse, dangerous-bringing the thinker of good will into serious danger of having his own conscience perverted by the sophistries of the other.
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.