Saturday, April 21, 2007

My thoughts on the upholding of the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban"

Undoubtedly most of you have heard that the Supreme Court of the US recently upheld the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban". I have grave concerns about this ruling. Putting aside for a minute the fact that the Supreme Court is not a legislative body and does not make laws, this ruling is totally worthless in that it will not save the life of one baby. Further, it is evil in that it specifically states other ways abortionists may kill babies without violating the ban. If you would like to read the opinion, please click on this link. (Note: when they refer to a "D&E procedure", they are referring to abortions in which the babies are torn out in pieces; an "intact D&E" is a partial birth abortion.)
This ruling upholds a law which purportedly bans the procedure commonly called "partial birth abortion", by which a preborn baby is delivered, usually feetfirst, until only the top of it's head remains in the mother's body. The murderer then stabs a scissors in the back of the baby's head, and sucks it's brains out with a strong vacuum machine. However, this ruling in no way infringes on other methods used to kill babies. For instance, on page 17 of the opinion, the court found that "First, the person performing the abortion must "vaginally delive[r] a living fetus." 1531(b)(1)(A). The Act does not restrict an abortion procedure involving the delivery of an expired fetus. The Act, furthermore, is inapplicable to abortions that do not involve vaginal delivery (for instance, hysterotomy or hysterectomy)." Further, on page 34, the court found that "If the intact D&E procedure is truly necessary in some circumstances, it appears likely an injection that kills the fetus is an alternative under the Act that allows the doctor to perform the procedure." In other words, the ban only is applicable to the partial delivery of a live baby; if it is killed first (by injection or otherwise) the ban does not apply. The court also found, on page 20, that "The Act excludes most D&Es in which the fetus is removed in pieces, not intact. If the doctor intends to remove the fetus in parts from the outset, the doctor will not have the requisite intent to incur criminal liability. A doctor performing a standard D&E procedure can often 'tak[e] about 10-15 'passes' through the uterus to remove the entire fetus'. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 962. Removing the fetus in this manner does not violate the Act because the doctor will not have delivered the living fetus to one of the anatomical landmarks or committed an additional overt act that kills the fetus after partial delivery. 1531 (b)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. IV)" The court not only failed to ban the killing of any babies, it told the murderers how to do their killing! The court further stated, on page 24, that "This reasoning, however, does not take account of the Act's intent requirements, which preclude liability from attaching to an accidental intact D&E . If a doctor's intent at the outset is to perform a D&E in which the fetus would not be delivered to either of the Act's anatomical landmarks, but the fetus nonetheless is delivered past one of those points, the requisite and prohibited scienter is not present. 18 U.S.C. 1531(b)(1)9A0 (2000 ed., Supp. IV) When a doctor in that situation completes an abortion by performing an intact D&E, the doctor does not violate the Act." In other words, if an abortionist was in the process of performing a Partial Birth Abortion procedure, and the medical examiner or whoever would be checking out the killnics came along, all the murderer would have to say is, "Oops, I was intending to tear the baby apart and take it out in pieces, but it came too far out. That is why I am stabbing him in the head and sucking out his brains. It was an accident."
Folks, can you see how lame this ruling is? Can you see how weak it is? I hope I am wrong about it. If you read the ruling, and come up with a different view than I got, please let me know. Maybe I missed something. It is hard to read and understand 39 pages of legal writing when you are not a lawyer. Some may call me a naysayer or pessimist. (I hope not.) Some may read it and prove me wrong. (I HOPE SO!) But, as I understand it, this is probably one on the worst rulings from the Supreme Court since the Roe v. Wade decision itself. With "prolife" justices like this, who needs pro-abort justices?! The worst part is that lots of well-meaning (and some not too well-meaning) folks will relax, thinking the good guys are in there now, so we can ease up in the battle. No, folks, now is the time we need to ratchet up the pressure, and never cease until every child is protected by love and by law! May God help us to that end!

James Niemela