Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Supreme Court and Partial Birth Abortion

The Supreme Court has upheld the partial birth abortion ban, making the practice now illegal all across the country. The decision was close - 5 to 4 - but a slim majority is still a majority. There are many of us who read this blog who would like to see abortion in general outlawed, but I at least am very glad for this small step forward.

Look for the abortion proponents are now going to be up in arms about the decision. However, President Bush has said,

"Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America."
The ban was enacted in 2003, but appeals have kept it from becoming law since then.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the Supreme Court, said that the decision is "alarming... it tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

And, one final statement from our Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi: "I am disappointed. Criminalizing doctors for performing medically necessary procedures to save a woman's life or protect her health is wrong. The Court's decision is a significant step backwards."

I would like to point out that our country's Declaration of Independence states that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life... [and] That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." I am glad to see that the Supreme Court has made this decision. It was not only morally right, but also was exactly as the Court said: the ban does *not* violate any Constitutional rights (or "rights", such as the "right" to abortion). At the point in time where many partial birth abortions are performed (usually over 21 weeks), the baby would be viable outside the womb. Even people who do not believe that a fetus is a human should be able to understand that if the woman had a cesarean instead of an abortion, both she and the baby would be given a chance at life. With the abortion, only one is given that chance. Thank you to Justices Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas, and Scalia.

Related Posts:

6 have poured out their souls in electronic text:

  • Alan


    What perverse logic enables one to completely ignore the rights of the child?

  • CappuccinoLife

    "necessary and proper" my foot. If a woman is so delicate that having a baby would kill her, what business does a doctor have inducing her labor unnaturally and at a time in pregnancy when the normal body actively resists letting go of the baby, turning a baby breech and delivering it's entire body, and then introducing sharp instruments into her body to "finish the job" so to speak? The logic of the insane.

  • JunkMale

    Pro-death people might cry out, saying abortion is on a slippery slope now.
    ...well...that's the point, you see.

  • Alan

    Ok this thread has some age on it... I'm going to add another comment anyway. Sorry!

    If fetuses could talk, if they could assemble and communicate their collective views, they would insist that we stop calling them fetuses--just as people in America of African descent have made it quite clear they are offended by the "n" word. Fetuses would be offended by being called fetuses. They are children.

    Since fetuses cannot speak for themselves, we should speak for them. We need to communicate to the world that they must stop using the "f" word to refer to unborn children. It is offensive.

  • Myfriendconnie

    Isn't fetus Latin for "child"?

  • Myfriendconnie

    Oops! Just checked. Fetus is Latin for "offspring".