Pro-Life AUL Pres. Calls Partial-Birth Ruling "Moral"
Tuesday January 17th, 2006. This is show # 12.
PERTINENT QUOTE OF THE SHOW:
Tuesday January 17th, 2006. This is show # 12.
PERTINENT QUOTE OF THE SHOW:
Pro-Life AUL Pres. Calls Partial-Birth Ruling "Moral"
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
drbrumley
Well-known member
The Planned Parenthood Of Central New Jersey v. John Farmer, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey case on appeal was filed on July 26, 2000, with Alito’s Third District, U.S. Court of Appeals. The pro-life side of this case sought to have New Jersey’s Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 1997 upheld. This ban was passed by the New Jersey legislature and in December of 1997, the legislature overrode the Governor’s veto of this ban.
In voting to strike down the N.J. ban on partial-birth abortion, Alito said, criticizing another judge on his court:
“That opinion fails to discuss the one authority that dictates the result in this appeal, namely, the Supreme Court’s decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, (U.S. June 28, 2000; which struck down a Nebraska law banning partial-birth abortion).
“Our responsibility as a lower court is to follow and apply controlling Supreme Court precedent. I write briefly to explain why Carhart requires us to affirm the decision of the District Court in this case. This is an appeal by the New Jersey State Legislature from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey holding the New Jersey Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, 2A:65A-5 et seq., unconstitutional and permanently enjoining enforcement of the Act. Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Verniero, 41 F. Supp. 2nd 478 (D.N.J. 1998). The New Jersey statute closely resembles statutes enacted in recent years in many other states.
“On January 14, 2000, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision in Carhart v. Stenberg, 192 F.3d 1142 (8th Cir. 1999), cert. granted, 120 S.Ct. 865 (2000), which presented the question of the constitutionality of a similar Nebraska statute. The Supreme Court recently held that the Nebraska statute is unconstitutional. Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000 WL 825889 (U.S. June 28, 2000).
“The Court based its decision on two grounds. First, in Part II-A of its opinion, the Court held that the Nebraska law is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception for the preservation of the health of the mother…
“Second, in Part II-B of its opinion, the [Supreme] Court held that the Nebraska statute is unconstitutional because it imposes an undue burden on a woman’s ability to choose the method most commonly used for second trimester abortions, the “dilation and evacuation” (D & E) method.
“Under Carhart, the decision of the District Court must be affirmed. First, the New Jersey statute, like its Nebraska counterpart, lacks an exception for the preservation of the health of the mother. Without such an exception, the New Jersey statute is irreconcilable with Part II-A of Carhart.
“Second, the Supreme Court’s holding in Part II-B of Carhart is also applicable here. As noted, in that portion of its opinion, the Court held that the Nebraska statute applied, not only to the “dilation and extraction” or D & X procedure, but also to the more commonly used D & E procedure. The wording of the relevant provisions of the Nebraska statute is nearly identical to that of the New Jersey statute. Thus, the Supreme Court’s holding in Part II-B of its opinion in Carhart must be regarded as controlling in this case.
“In light of this interpretation of the New Jersey statute, the Legislature’s argument that the plaintiffs lack standing must fail. As noted above, the New Jersey statute must be interpreted, in light of Carhart, as applying to the D E procedure, and the plaintiff physicians in this case perform that form of abortion. The Legislature’s argument that this case is not ripe because the New Jersey statute has not been authoritatively interpreted by the state courts or state enforcement officials must also fail. In view of the interpretation in Carhart, there is no reason to wait for interpretation by state officials or judges.
“In a post-Carhart filing, the New Jersey Legislature has urged us to certify questions concerning the interpretation of the New Jersey statute to the state supreme court. In Carhart, however, the Supreme Court of the United States turned down a similar request for certification by the Attorney General of Nebraska.
“The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to deny certification in Carhart must be regarded as controlling here, both with respect to the Legislature’s request for certification and with respect to its closely related argument that the District Court erred in refusing to abstain pursuant to Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. , 312 U.S. 496 (1941). In conclusion, Carhart compels affirmance of the decision of the District Court.”
OK, so what does all this mean in plain English from a Christian, pro-life perspective?
Well, first, and obviously (wake up, please, Mr. Ertelt!), Alito’s voting to strike down New Jersey’s ban on partial-birth abortion gives us no grounds whatsoever to believe that on the Supreme Court he would vote to uphold a ban on partial-birth abortion.
Secondly, Alito’s assertion that there was only “one authority” to dictate his decision to strike down NJ’s partial-birth abortion ban, and that “one authority” is “the Supreme Court’s decision in Stenberg v. Carhart,” is pernicious, Godless nonsense.
There is “one authority” here higher than the Supreme Court and that authority is God and His Word according to which partial-birth abortion — infanticide — is murder! Therefore, any “law” purporting to “legalize” partial-birth abortion is no law at all because it contradicts God’s Law against murder. End of discussion.
Thirdly, Alito’s knee-jerk deference to a previous Supreme Court ruling is also nonsense. His “responsibility” as a lower court judge in this case, and in all cases, is not “to follow and apply controlling Supreme Court precedent.” His “responsibility,” as a judge, is to, first, obey God’s Law! And this would mean for him to vote to uphold NJ’s ban on partial-birth abortion.
Fourthly, Alito’s voting to strike down NJ’s ban on infanticide because, as he put it, this ban “lacks an exception for the preservation of the health of the mother,” is absurd. The “health of the mother” is never, ever a justifiable reason for allowing a mother to murder her innocent baby.
Fifthly and finally, Alito’s assertion that the NJ infanticide-ban must be struck down because this ban would ban “not only the ‘dilation and extraction’ or D & X procedure, but also the more commonly used D & E procedure” and thus this ban “imposes an undue burden on a woman’s ability to choose the method most commonly used for second trimester abortions, the ‘dilation and evacuation’ (D & E) method,” is very revealing.
What Alito is saying is that the NJ infanticide-ban must be struck down because its wording would also ban your typical abortion! And, obviously, he is against this even though, as I said earlier, all “laws” purporting to “legalize” all abortions are not law because they violate God’s Law against murder!
Below: JUDGE ALITO says this cannot be banned because the Supreme Court says it cannot be banned
In voting to strike down the N.J. ban on partial-birth abortion, Alito said, criticizing another judge on his court:
“That opinion fails to discuss the one authority that dictates the result in this appeal, namely, the Supreme Court’s decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, (U.S. June 28, 2000; which struck down a Nebraska law banning partial-birth abortion).
“Our responsibility as a lower court is to follow and apply controlling Supreme Court precedent. I write briefly to explain why Carhart requires us to affirm the decision of the District Court in this case. This is an appeal by the New Jersey State Legislature from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey holding the New Jersey Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, 2A:65A-5 et seq., unconstitutional and permanently enjoining enforcement of the Act. Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Verniero, 41 F. Supp. 2nd 478 (D.N.J. 1998). The New Jersey statute closely resembles statutes enacted in recent years in many other states.
“On January 14, 2000, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision in Carhart v. Stenberg, 192 F.3d 1142 (8th Cir. 1999), cert. granted, 120 S.Ct. 865 (2000), which presented the question of the constitutionality of a similar Nebraska statute. The Supreme Court recently held that the Nebraska statute is unconstitutional. Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000 WL 825889 (U.S. June 28, 2000).
“The Court based its decision on two grounds. First, in Part II-A of its opinion, the Court held that the Nebraska law is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception for the preservation of the health of the mother…
“Second, in Part II-B of its opinion, the [Supreme] Court held that the Nebraska statute is unconstitutional because it imposes an undue burden on a woman’s ability to choose the method most commonly used for second trimester abortions, the “dilation and evacuation” (D & E) method.
“Under Carhart, the decision of the District Court must be affirmed. First, the New Jersey statute, like its Nebraska counterpart, lacks an exception for the preservation of the health of the mother. Without such an exception, the New Jersey statute is irreconcilable with Part II-A of Carhart.
“Second, the Supreme Court’s holding in Part II-B of Carhart is also applicable here. As noted, in that portion of its opinion, the Court held that the Nebraska statute applied, not only to the “dilation and extraction” or D & X procedure, but also to the more commonly used D & E procedure. The wording of the relevant provisions of the Nebraska statute is nearly identical to that of the New Jersey statute. Thus, the Supreme Court’s holding in Part II-B of its opinion in Carhart must be regarded as controlling in this case.
“In light of this interpretation of the New Jersey statute, the Legislature’s argument that the plaintiffs lack standing must fail. As noted above, the New Jersey statute must be interpreted, in light of Carhart, as applying to the D E procedure, and the plaintiff physicians in this case perform that form of abortion. The Legislature’s argument that this case is not ripe because the New Jersey statute has not been authoritatively interpreted by the state courts or state enforcement officials must also fail. In view of the interpretation in Carhart, there is no reason to wait for interpretation by state officials or judges.
“In a post-Carhart filing, the New Jersey Legislature has urged us to certify questions concerning the interpretation of the New Jersey statute to the state supreme court. In Carhart, however, the Supreme Court of the United States turned down a similar request for certification by the Attorney General of Nebraska.
“The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to deny certification in Carhart must be regarded as controlling here, both with respect to the Legislature’s request for certification and with respect to its closely related argument that the District Court erred in refusing to abstain pursuant to Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. , 312 U.S. 496 (1941). In conclusion, Carhart compels affirmance of the decision of the District Court.”
OK, so what does all this mean in plain English from a Christian, pro-life perspective?
Well, first, and obviously (wake up, please, Mr. Ertelt!), Alito’s voting to strike down New Jersey’s ban on partial-birth abortion gives us no grounds whatsoever to believe that on the Supreme Court he would vote to uphold a ban on partial-birth abortion.
Secondly, Alito’s assertion that there was only “one authority” to dictate his decision to strike down NJ’s partial-birth abortion ban, and that “one authority” is “the Supreme Court’s decision in Stenberg v. Carhart,” is pernicious, Godless nonsense.
There is “one authority” here higher than the Supreme Court and that authority is God and His Word according to which partial-birth abortion — infanticide — is murder! Therefore, any “law” purporting to “legalize” partial-birth abortion is no law at all because it contradicts God’s Law against murder. End of discussion.
Thirdly, Alito’s knee-jerk deference to a previous Supreme Court ruling is also nonsense. His “responsibility” as a lower court judge in this case, and in all cases, is not “to follow and apply controlling Supreme Court precedent.” His “responsibility,” as a judge, is to, first, obey God’s Law! And this would mean for him to vote to uphold NJ’s ban on partial-birth abortion.
Fourthly, Alito’s voting to strike down NJ’s ban on infanticide because, as he put it, this ban “lacks an exception for the preservation of the health of the mother,” is absurd. The “health of the mother” is never, ever a justifiable reason for allowing a mother to murder her innocent baby.
Fifthly and finally, Alito’s assertion that the NJ infanticide-ban must be struck down because this ban would ban “not only the ‘dilation and extraction’ or D & X procedure, but also the more commonly used D & E procedure” and thus this ban “imposes an undue burden on a woman’s ability to choose the method most commonly used for second trimester abortions, the ‘dilation and evacuation’ (D & E) method,” is very revealing.
What Alito is saying is that the NJ infanticide-ban must be struck down because its wording would also ban your typical abortion! And, obviously, he is against this even though, as I said earlier, all “laws” purporting to “legalize” all abortions are not law because they violate God’s Law against murder!
Below: JUDGE ALITO says this cannot be banned because the Supreme Court says it cannot be banned
Perhaps for the first time publicly...
Perhaps for the first time publicly...
This is how I describe this show at KGOV.com:
Perhaps for the first time publicly, a national Christian leader, Peter Samuelson of American's United for Life, bluntly admits that man's law takes precedence over God's "Thou Shall Not Murder," and a judge's decision (like the ruling of Samuel Alito) which follows precedent to uphold partial-birth abortion, is "moral." Pastor Bob Enyart of Denver Bible Church rebukes AUL and all Christian organizations which defend compromise on Thou Shall Not Murder for any legal or political rationale. This tragic story could open the last chapter of a book on Alito's influence on America.
-Bob Enyart
Perhaps for the first time publicly...
This is how I describe this show at KGOV.com:
Perhaps for the first time publicly, a national Christian leader, Peter Samuelson of American's United for Life, bluntly admits that man's law takes precedence over God's "Thou Shall Not Murder," and a judge's decision (like the ruling of Samuel Alito) which follows precedent to uphold partial-birth abortion, is "moral." Pastor Bob Enyart of Denver Bible Church rebukes AUL and all Christian organizations which defend compromise on Thou Shall Not Murder for any legal or political rationale. This tragic story could open the last chapter of a book on Alito's influence on America.
-Bob Enyart
drbrumley
Well-known member
I agree. For a better understanding of My (our) disagreement with Billy, just read Gods Law threadSozo said:
God's Law and also
RE-publicans=abortion
- Status