Supreme Court Actually Kept "Partial Birth" Abortion Legal

Nathon Detroit

New member


Supreme Court Actually Kept "Partial Birth" Abortion Legal

Pro-life Movement Makes False Claims About PBA Ruling

An Open Letter to Pro-lifers,

[As published in Human Events magazine, 6-11-07, signed by leaders of Colorado Right to Life, Human Life International, Operation Rescue/OSA, and the American Life League, condensed from our Open Letter to Dr. James Dobson:]

We the undersigned grieve at the celebration by many Christian leaders of one of the most barbaric opinions ever issued by an Amer–ican court. We plead with pro-lifers to go to SupremeCourt–US.gov to read the Gonzales v. Car–hart ruling.

Pro-life organizations have applauded these "pro-life Jus–tices" nominated to the court by our pro-life presidents, stating for example, "the Supreme Court has affirmed the value of human life." But actu–ally, these Justices concur optimistically on page 30 that, "The medical profession [abortionists] may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus …" It is false to claim the Justices showed any concern for the child; the ruling's real concern is to improve the public-relations image of the abortionist (as we will show).

The Justices we've called "pro-life" did not "affirm" the life of the unborn but upheld a mere "regulatory" law " under the Commerce Clause" (p. 36). These Justices misrepresented as "pro-life" actually suggest other ways for abortionists to kill the fully intact, late-term child to comply with their regulation, such as " an injection that kills the fetus" (p. 34). Imagine the horror yet to come now that our greatest Christian leaders are willing to call good evil, and evil good. Throughout the ruling, Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito concur that both the partial-birth abortion (PBA) ban, and their ruling, allow the abortionist to deliver a late-term baby all the way up to the navel and then kill him (especially pp. 17-26). To actually violate this regulation "requires the fetus to be delivered 'until … any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother'" (p. 17) as in a standard breech (feet-first) abortion.

The pro-life industry said, " thank God for this victory that affirms the value of human life, " but this vulgar ruling actually instructs on how to perform just another form of partial-birth abortion , just not "past the navel." And they celebrated this even though it affirms causing " the fetus to tear apart" (p. 4 ). The Justices build upon the late-term abortion procedure called dilation and evacuation, which this ruling repeatedly up–holds as remaining legal, stating (p. 21) that "D&E will often involve a physician pulling a 'substantial portion' of a still living fetus, say, an arm or leg, into the [birth canal] prior to the death of the fetus." Then for the purpose of this current opinion, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, regarding a still living unborn child, ruled that (p. 22): " the removal of a small portion ['say, an arm or leg' ] of the fetus is not prohibited" and that's after the baby is pulled outside the mother as far as to his bellybutton (p. 22).

False Pro-Life Claims

The pro-life industry misled Christians claiming this ruling will "protect children." The court granted no authority to save the life of even a single child. The ruling indicates the abortionist can still legally perform a textbook partial-birth abortion, if for example the mother is over "dilate[d]" (p. 24) and the baby, by "inadvertence," is delivered up to the neck as in typical PBA. Then the abortionist can kill him by "intact D&E" (p. 24), i.e., by PBA . An abortionist only needs to maintain that his original "intent" was to deliver the baby up to the navel before killing him. "If a living fetus is delivered past the critical point [the bellybutton] by accident or inad–vertence [and then killed] no crime has occurred " (p. 18).

Pro-lifers have donated millions being misled that this ban had the authority to save the lives of at least some unborn children. Some of the misrepresentation has been committed by members of the Evangelical Council For Financial Accountability which requires that, " There must be no material… exaggerations of fact." Online at KGOV.com, we document pro-life organizations misrepresenting of this vicious ruling including claims that it outlaws 3rd-trimester abortions, yet the court explicitly stated the PBA ban "does not on its face impose a substantial obstacle" to "late-term" abortion ( p. 26 ). And since this ban cannot prevent a single abortion, of course, it imposes no actual obstacle, and neither does it "protect children," a horribly false claim.

There is nothing new with this ruling that is good, no precedent, no truth, no defense of life, only brutality and death. And yes, there is "no health exception," not as a pro-life legal victory, but because the Justices ruled you can still kill any such unwanted baby in countless ways, including by a PBA.

More Wicked than Roe

When pressed, pro-life leaders in private admit to us this ban had no authority to save lives, but that it kept "the issue in the news." Others misrepresent ruling excerpts that sound encouraging, e.g., "The government may… show its profound respect for the life within the woman" (p. 27). This is just lip-service that the Justices reprint from the Casey ruling of 15 years earlier, but this ruling prohibits such respect.

This wicked ruling states it prefers the word "fetus" to "child," and it trivializes the dreadful account (pp. 8-9) of killing a child whose arms and legs are wiggling outside the mother, callously comparing our revulsion to our reaction to any medical procedure, like being squeamish over getting stitches. The Justices quote an abortionist: "For the staff to have to deal with a fetus that has 'some viability to it, some movement of limbs, [is] always a difficult situation.'" With grave wickedness, the "pro-life Justices" observe ( p. 29): "Any number of patients facing imminent surgical procedures would prefer not to hear all details, lest the usual anxiety… become the more intense. This is likely the case with the abortion procedures here in issue." The court, including Roberts and Alito, trivializes the grotesque particulars of causing " the fetus to tear apart" (p. 4 ) by comparing that to getting queasy by talk of incisions, and the pro-life industry "applauds the court." We should be appalled.

As a fundraiser, PBA brought hundreds of millions to the pro-life industry, as a ban, it lacks the authority to save even a single child. During the long PBA distraction from the actual war, America killed 20 million children. And recently, a major pro-life fundraising firm told Colorado Right To Life, "The PBA script gets the best results."

The pro-life industry should stop foisting its moral relativism onto the church, and should correct their falsehood that this gruesome ruling will "protect children." For, serious pro-lifers are already looking else–where for the strategy and leadership to end legal abortion.

This wicked ruling is not a ban, but a partial-birth abortion man–ual. These "pro-life Justices" give instructions on what can be called Navel Birth Abortion, only a four-inch variation from a textbook PBA. Steps from the ruling:

1) The abortionist may partially deliver the unborn child all the way to the bellybutton, but not "past the navel."
2) Then "a leg might be ripped off, " etc. to "kill the fetus."
3) Or alternatively, "find… less shocking methods to abort…"
What a mockery of the goodwill of rank-and-file pro-lifers.

The Justices raise the likelihood that with this ruling, the fetus now faces greater brutality . The Justices note the objection (p. 30) "that the standard D&E is in some respects as brutal, if not more, than the intact D&E [PBA]." That is, standard late-term D&E abortion appears to be more cruel than PBA. And the Justices do not rebut that claim . Their interest is not to protect children, but to pro–mote the "integrity and ethics" (p. 27) of the medical and abortion industries and to improve "the public's perception" (p. 30) of late-term abortion.

Incrementalism is fine; compromised incrementalism violates God's enduring command, Do not murder.

The court ruling celebrated by the pro-life industry results in the legal preference for " reasonable alternative procedures" (p. 33) for killing "late-term" children including " a leg might be ripped off the fetus" and " ripping it apart, " (pp. 4, 6). And the pro-life industry "applauds the court." We rebuke them.

Signed,
  • Brian Rohrbough, Colo. Right to Life
  • Rev. Tom Euteneuer, Human Life Int'l
  • Flip Benham, Operation Rescue/OSA
  • Dr. Pat Johnston, ProLife Physicians
  • Bob Enyart, Denver Bible Church
  • Judie Brown, American Life League

At ColoradoRightToLife.org:
  • see which pro-life groups celebrate the ruling, and the leaders who condemn the ruling
  • learn to recognize moral relativism in the pro-life industry,
  • which is called legal positivism
  • sign the "40 Years" pledge to never compromise on God's enduring command: Do not murder.
[The ad refers people to ColoradoRightToLife.org, which has the following information:]

1. Leaders Condemning the Partial-Birth Abortion Ruling:
Ambassador Alan Keyes (see Alan's 30-sec clip at ColoradoRightToLife.org)
American Life League and president Judie Brown
Operation Rescue / O.S.A. and director Flip Benham
John Archibold, founding board member, A.U.L. & National Right to Life
Dr. Charles Rice, Professor, University of Notre Dame Law School
Editor Jim Rudd of Covenant News
Editor John Lofton of The American View
Editor Brannon Howse, WorldviewTube.com & Christian Worldview Network
Missionaries to the Preborn and founder Matt Trewhella
LifeCommercials.com and founder Jim Anderson
Calvary Chapel South Denver pastor Gino Geraci
Crossroad Baptist Church pastor Chuck Baldwin
Denver Bible Church and pastor Bob Enyart
Colorado Republican Party Former State Chairman Steve Curtis
TheologyOnline.com founder Eric Guttormson (Google 8 of 27 million for: theology)
TheologyWeb.com founder Brian Martin
Rev. Tom Euteneuer, Human Life International (75 offices in 90 countries)
Colorado Right To Life and president Brian Rohrbough

2. Criticism from the Above Leaders has Led to Admissions from PBA Ban Supporters:
Dr. James Dobson : "Ending partial-birth abortion… does not save a single human life." -Focus on the Family website, May 2007.

Thomas More Society's Pro-Life Law Center: special counsel Paul Linton authored amicus briefs to the U. S. Supreme Court in the partial-birth abortion cases, and said of the PBA ruling: "It's not going to stop any abortions as such," he said. "They're still going to take place by other means."

WorldNetDaily.com's Bob Unruh wrote that there is "the fact that the legal [PBA] ruling, itself, does not and cannot be used to proscribe [prohibit] a single abortion…"

FRC in a Washington Post story : "Chuck Donovan, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, a Washington advocacy group allied with Dobson, said... "there are certainly a fair number of people, including in our own building, who think… that, practically, there may not be even one fewer abortion in the country as a result." The Post quotes another source: "...the partial-birth abortion ban as a fundraising technique has brought in over a quarter of a billion dollars" for major antiabortion groups, "but the ban has no authority to prevent a single abortion , and pro-life donors were never told that…"
 

themuzicman

New member
The law itself only outlawwed a particular procedure. Without engaging in judicial activism, the SCOTUS CANNOT rule on anything other than what the law said, and the law itself was upheld.

Yes, the ruling specifically stated that other late term abortion procedures would still be legal, and stated as such in graphic terms, demonstrating the limited extent of the law as written.

God forbid that we should take what is a very small victory and turn it into a mega-defeat.

But that's what the pro-life movement is all about these days, I guess.

Muz
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
The law itself only outlawwed a particular procedure. Without engaging in judicial activism, the SCOTUS CANNOT rule on anything other than what the law said, and the law itself was upheld.

Yes, the ruling specifically stated that other late term abortion procedures would still be legal, and stated as such in graphic terms, demonstrating the limited extent of the law as written.

God forbid that we should take what is a very small victory and turn it into a mega-defeat.

But that's what the pro-life movement is all about these days, I guess.

Muz
Small victory?! Are you blind?! There's no victory in that! There is absolutely no way one single life will be saved by this law! And how in the world did you forget that it was the SCotUS that ruled for abortion to be legal, nationwide, in the first place?! That was judicial activism, was it not?! They ruled it [not the specific justices, of course] they can overturn it! They have that authority, apparently!
 
Easy Way Out

Easy Way Out

The abortion ruling can be the expected result if people don't take action to fight the issue and take it into the streets.

Besides law, there are many ways to penalize the system for what it is doing.

It can be publically and economically not the best choice to perform abortions.

But the issue also points out how double standard people of faith have become about questioning what is going on and what it really means.

The abortion ruling and Dobson are no different.
 
Thou Shalt Not Murder

Thou Shalt Not Murder

Is bombing Iraq and killing thousands or in Afghanistan, or as Kilpatrick, starving thousands of children, any different than abortion?

Much of the religious right supports the war and the killing of muslim people, ends justifies the means, we have a president who would not be in office if the religious right did not support him.

I find the religious right calling itself pro life a bit of a stretch.

Maybe Dobson is all they deserve?

In Thailand we always ask, "Are you in favor of family values, and that is why you take away the Akha children from their families?

Faith Chapel Arvada?
 

Ktoyou

New member
Hall of Fame
I know about this and it is a very sad thing. I cannot understand why anyone would want a late term abortion anymore than I can understand why some children pull the heads off little animals, other than to say they are angry children, but what here? Are these women who carry full term little children and are these judges like little children who have a violent streak. OK, all abortion is wrong, but if one wanted to do it anyway, why would they wait, why?
 

Ktoyou

New member
Hall of Fame
Is bombing Iraq and killing thousands or in Afghanistan, or as Kilpatrick, starving thousands of children, any different than abortion?

Yes very very different, the army is not purposely intending to hurt innocent people.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
I was wondering how long it was gonna take before someone trotted out the Nazi card...:yawn:

So with all the hullabaloo about the ruling, what's the intent or mission or ultimate purpose, anyhow? To raise awareness, or something else?
 

Cracked

New member
So do you think we shouldn't have gone to war against Hitler because we knew in advance that some innocent children would be killed as collateral damage?

Oh no... I support just war. If it is unjust and you support it, however, you will answer for every innocent life taken.
 

themuzicman

New member
Small victory?! Are you blind?! There's no victory in that! There is absolutely no way one single life will be saved by this law! And how in the world did you forget that it was the SCotUS that ruled for abortion to be legal, nationwide, in the first place?! That was judicial activism, was it not?! They ruled it [not the specific justices, of course] they can overturn it! They have that authority, apparently!

Do you know what the phrase "a toe in the door" means?

Muz
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Do you know what the phrase "a toe in the door" means?

Muz
A toe in the door that allows for children to be killed is not a toe I want in the door. This ruling allows for PBAs to still take place. Not one single child will be saved by this law. It is unGodly, and those who claim to be God's should not support it. And if you do, I am ashamed of you.
 
Th is really cracks me up. Christians can justify anything, then call themselves pro life.

There is no moral killing, it is all messed up. so if it is going to be ok, then it needs to be ok for everyone, Jew, Israeli, Palestinian, Americans, Thais, who ever. Lets not play games with high moral ground.

And what about life style? Doesn't high life style kill people, high consumption, disregard for the third world.

Oh, smart bombs, only kill people by accident. Will smart bombs go to hell?

America is the most violent murderous nation in the world, and the most religious. Anyone see a contradiction?

If christians weren't so busy building big box churches and spouting off about israel which has VERY HIGH abortion rates, they would be more effective at fighting abortion.

Oh and that is another thing, if bombing people in Iraq is ok to kill children because it wasn't done on purpose, then certainly that would make a lot of things ok.
 
Top