www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Partial-birth Abortion Ban Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court

In reaffirming Roe, the Casey Court described the centrality of �the decision whether to bear ... a child,� Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 31 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972), [this case made it a Constitutional right to purchase contraception--the Consitution says no such thing--Paul VI said that if you have contraception, abortion is sure to follow] to a woman's �dignity and autonomy,� her �personhood� [and what about the personhood of the child in utero] and �destiny,� her �conception of ... her place in society.� 505 U.S., at 851-852. [this is a rejection of her place in communion not at war with Adam] Of signal importance here, the Casey Court stated with unmistakable clarity that state regulation of access to abortion procedures, even after viability, must protect �the health of the woman.� Id., at 846. [in Casey

*31 Seven years ago, in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000), the Court invalidated a Nebraska statute criminalizing the performance of a medical procedure that, in the political arena, has been dubbed �partial-birth abortion.� [dubbed--smashing the skull of an infant as its being born is being dubbed]FN1 With fidelity to the Roe- Casey [In Casey we were given pure blasphemy -- "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."] line of precedent, the Court held the Nebraska statute unconstitutional in part because it lacked the requisite protection for the preservation of a woman's health. [ie it didn't allow abortion at any time] Stenberg, 530 U.S., at 930; cf. Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U.S. 320, 327, 126 S.Ct. 961, 163 L.Ed.2d 812 (2006).


FN1. The term �partial-birth abortion� is neither recognized in the medical literature nor used by physicians who perform second-trimester abortions. [ritht it should be called by its proper term--murder] See Planned Parenthood Federation of Am. v. Ashcroft, 320 F.Supp.2d 957, 964 (N.D.Cal.2004), aff'd, 435 F.3d 1163 (C.A.9 2006). The medical community refers to the procedure as either dilation & extraction (D & X) or intact dilation and evacuation (intact D & E) [facny words for murder]. See, e.g., ante, at 5; Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 927, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000).


*31 Today's decision is alarming [it is very alarming when babies aren't allowed to be killed when they see the light of the day]. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously [yep--cause they shouldn't be taken seriously]. It tolerates [that most supreme virtue in modern America is now called into question], indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line [the penumbras perhaps which have been emanating from the Constitution], firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses [what a blessing to stop a child from being brutally murdered] a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health.

*32 I dissent from the Court's disposition. Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman's reproductive choices [what about a woman's nutritional rights--how will you protect those].

I would expect that from a pro-choice legislator (or a Planned Parenthood spokesman), but not from a judge.

Abortion may become one of the more important issues in the 2008 U.S. presidential elections.

True to form, the 3 leading candidates of the Democratic Party (Clinton, Edwards, and Obama) assailed the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as an infringement of a woman's consitutional right to choose as enshrined in the Roe v. Wade of 1973, notwithstanding the fact that the decision focused only on one procedure, considered by the Highest Court of the land as "infanticide" and the fact that the Federal law ban on partial-birth abortion was passed by a bi-partisan Congress in 2003.

On the other hand, all the leading candidates of the Republican Party (McCain, Romney, Brownback) agreed with the decision and praised the Supreme Court for saying what partial-birth abortion really is: a barbaric act that offends basic human decency.

And, here's the surprise: former Mayor Giuliani seems to have change his stance as he also agrees with the Supreme Court decision!

Full story at:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9155

To all pro-lifers who have followed these twin cases as they were debated in the lower courts, the Supreme Court decision to uphold the partial-birth abortion ban is monumental as it opens a crack on the armor of pro-abortion groups provided by Roe v. Wade (1973) for 34 long years!

It could be only considered relatively "minor" by many but it is critical in our fight against the culture of death that now pervades our society.

We have to start somewhere and, by divine providence perhaps, we got a "conservative" Supreme Court (read 5 Catholic Justices forming as a majority, thanks to Pres. Bush) which turned the tide in our favor as we had fervently hoped for!