« Eugenics and its Link to Evolution and Abortion | Main | Controversy Continues Over Kerry's Military Record and 527s »

Partial-Birth Ban Underscores Election Importance

Deliver those who are being taken away to death, And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold {them} back. Prov. 24:11

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . . The Declaration of Independence.

Despite the self-evident right to life spoken by our Founding Fathers, a U.S. Court has declared the ban on partial-birth abortions to be uncontitutional. [CNN, Reuters]

NEW YORK (article) - A federal judge on Thursday ruled against the government's ban on so-called partial birth abortions, saying the measure signed into law last year by President Bush was unconstitutional.

The government maintains the procedure is not only medically unnecessary but an "inhumane procedure that causes pain to the fetus." There is adequate education in the public arena that is compelling and informative regarding the gruesome nature of this "procedure." Consequently, the U.S. Congress and the President of the United states signed into law this ban that has now been declared unconstitutional. The fact that the judicial branch of our government continues to legislate from the bench against the rights of the unborn should underscore the importance of the upcoming election.

Rescue the poor and needy; save them from the hand of the wicked.; Ps. 82:4

More Information:

Concerned Women for America: Martin Haskell, who invented the procedure, admitted in trial in Wisconsin that ‘the D&X procedure is never medically necessary to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.’

Planned Parenthood: The abortion ban is a brazen affront to women's health, the right to medical privacy and the U.S. Constitution and was rightfully struck down.

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Pro-life groups reacted to the decision of a federal judge on Thursday striking down the ban on partial-birth abortions by saying that the next president will have the power to determine whether the gruesome abortion procedure remains legal. [more]

SCOTTSDALE, AZ—The Alliance Defense Fund is calling today’s ruling from a U.S. District Court judge in New York, who found the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional due to the lack of a so-called "health exception," "another example of the judiciary overstepping its bounds."

"Public opinion polls reflect that partial-birth abortion is widely regarded as a barbaric procedure," said ADF Attorney Dale Schowengerdt. "We are hopeful that the will of the people will prevail."

Schowengerdt said that abortion proponents and activist courts continually ignore the fact that concerns over offering health exceptions in such bans completely ignore the health of the child whose life is at stake. "Although today’s opinion acknowledges that many have described the partial-birth abortion procedure as ‘gruesome, inhumane, brutal, and barbaric,’ it suspends the law designed to halt such horror," he said.

Schowengerdt explained that health exceptions are notoriously abused. "Abortion advocates know this, and that’s why they want such exceptions," he said. "Health exceptions are not well defined. Just about anything can become a health exception."

He added that the battle is far from over, however. "Americans overwhelmingly reject this hideous procedure, and it is their will, not the will of the courts, that will win in the end."

ADF is America’s largest legal alliance defending religious liberty through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.

Americans United for Life: While acknowledging that the partial birth abortion procedure was "gruesome," Judge Richard Casey struck down the first federal ban on abortion in over 30 years, arguing that the only way such procedures could be prohibited is if there was a "medical consensus" that women’s health would not benefit from its availability.

Notwithstanding the fact that the federal ban included an exception for the life of the mother, the court decided that Supreme Court precedent required that a ban must also include a "health" exception.

Posted by tim at August 26, 2004 12:30 PM

Articles Related to Abortion: