Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

[Ebowed]

By Pastor David Whitney

Many Americans have successfully been deceived into believing Bush is pro-life. The evidence is against that fact. I have the distinct impression that he was without any real interest in the goals of the movement to end abortion.

What is that evidence? Here it is. We've been told that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban signed by Bush proves that he is pro-life. That is a flat out lie. Actually it proves the opposite.

This bill will not save the life of one unborn child. On the contrary, it actually endangers the unborn child in two ways:

First it will not save the life of one unborn child because it merely instructs the contract killer whom the mother has hired as to precisely when he must kill that child to avoid prosecution. Do you think that this will stop even one abortion? Who will stand watch in those killing centers to be sure these partial birth murders are prosecuted? Will a District Attorney now be present at each killing to insure that the murder is conducted at just the right moment? This Partial Birth Abortion Ban is virtually unenforceable. It will not save even one child from murder.

Second, this is the most wicked piece of legislation in the history of our land because it codifies and actually legalizes all forms of abortion except Partial Birth Abortion. We need to remember that in our system of government, the Supreme Court never makes law. People say Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. It did not. It was the courts opinion in that one case, and it governed that one case alone. States, who chose to, could have continued to prosecute abortionists for murder. The law had not changed. Abortion was still murder. Two classes of politicians, those who don't understand our form of government, and those who have chosen to subvert our form of government, decided to treat that Supreme Court opinion (and that's what it is) as law. The very first words of the Constitution, following the Preamble are, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress ...."

Only the legislative branch makes law. Any law they make must be signed into law by the President. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban for the first time in U.S. history codified abortion as the law of the land. It makes abortion legal for the first time ever in America. So Bush signed the first law to legalize abortion in America. Do you call that a pro-life Presidential candidate? Don't take my word for it. Check out the facts for yourself.

http://www.covenantnews.com/peroutka041021.htm

[A18]

The guy who wrote that article is amazingly clueless.

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban merely states that that specific act shall not be construed as to outlaw other forms of abortion. It does not in any way legalize other forms of abortion.

As for prosecuting abortion, there's this "little" thing called precedent. The lower courts will find any such convictions as incompatible with Roe, and overturn them.

[Brandon H]

I remember getting that from Peroutka. Someone on Peroutka's site now is saying if the Parental Notification Vote in California passes, it would say abortion is ok with a parents consent.

I try to stay away from Covenant News though. Most recently they seem to support the idea that God sent Katrina to stop Southern Decadence (the gay festival).

[Ebowed]

Someone on Peroutka's site now is saying if the Parental Notification Vote in California passes, it would say abortion is ok with a parents consent.

That's an interesting argument.  Ultimately, the more restrictions we as a pro-life movement are able to get passed, the harder it could theoretically become to get rid of abortion altogether.

[A18]

Someone on Peroutka's site now is saying if the Parental Notification Vote in California passes, it would say abortion is ok with a parents consent.

That's an interesting argument.  Ultimately, the more restrictions we as a pro-life movement are able to get passed, the harder it could theoretically become to get rid of abortion altogether.

If by "interesting," you mean "laughable," then yeah. Outlawing one thing does not mean everything else is legal.

This is not open to debate. A fourth grader could get this, and Peroutka is clearly a brain dead kook.

[Ebowed]

Here's a much better article on the ban:

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2003

Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion.  Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age.  The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty.  As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure.  It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.

Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization.  Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society.  There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation.  Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.

The best solution, of course, is not now available to us.  That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.  Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.

Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well.  Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

For example, 14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide...” The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community?  By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not.

Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion.  This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce.  The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope.  H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.

H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a “distinction” made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is.  By depending upon this illogical “distinction,” I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.

Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it.  I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html

I'm disappointed that he questioned its constitutionality and then voted in favor of it... but he has some valid points, more reasonable than the ones in the Peroutka article imo.

[WMS]

Here's a much better article on the ban:

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2003

Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion.  Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age.  The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty.  As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure.  It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.

Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization.  Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society.  There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation.  Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.

The best solution, of course, is not now available to us.  That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.  Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.

Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well.  Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

For example, 14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide...” The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community?  By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not.

Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion.  This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce.  The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope.  H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.

H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a “distinction” made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is.  By depending upon this illogical “distinction,” I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.

Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it.  I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html

I'm disappointed that he questioned its constitutionality and then voted in favor of it... but he has some valid points, more reasonable than the ones in the Peroutka article imo.

Wow, my respect for Ron Paul went up - I always respected-but-disagreed with him, but on this one I strongly agree with him.

[Emsworth]

What makes the Partial-Birth Abortion Act even worse is the fact that Congress passed it in the face of a Supreme Court ruling that partial birth abortion bans that lack health exceptions are unconstitutional (Stenberg v. Carhart). The act represents Congress' haughty disdain for the judiciary.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Ah, but Emsworth, the court decision cited was an absurd mangling of the Constitution.

It, and the justices who voted for it are worthy of distain.

It was the court which was "haughty" in its contempt for the actions of the states.

[phk]

Great act, there will be less criminals on the streets.

[Emsworth]

Ah, but Emsworth, the court decision cited was an absurd mangling of the Constitution.

The decision (although unsound) was not too bad. After all, the court did not invent a new right in this case; the common law recognizes the right of any person to protect his health.

[A18]

Ah, but Emsworth, the court decision cited was an absurd mangling of the Constitution.

The decision (although unsound) was not too bad. After all, the court did not invent a new right in this case; the common law recognizes the right of any person to protect his health.

The problem is two-fold: (a) statutory law trumps common law, and (b) all a woman has to do is tell her doctor that having the kid would greatly upset her, and she gets off on a 'mental health' exception.

[Emsworth]

The problem is two-fold: (a) statutory law trumps common law, and (b) all a woman has to do is tell her doctor that having the kid would greatly upset her, and she gets off on a 'mental health' exception.

It could be argued that the common-law right to protect one's health is a privilege or immunity. Of course, the assertion that the privileges or immunities clause protects rights not mentioned in the text is rather difficult to sustain. But at the very least, this right was a well-established one recognized by the common law jurists, rather than the product of modern judicial proclamation.

[A18]

It could be argued that anything is a privilege or immunity. But there's really no historic basis for saying any kind of abortion is protected by the Constitution.

What the Court was applying there was the 'undue burden test.' Now, I don't know if the undue burden test was applied properly or not, for I do not know what an 'undue burden' is. It could mean a million things in the abstract, and I'm afraid it has just come to be another tool for judicial law-making.

[CARLHAYDEN]

A18, you have made several valid points.

I would add to them that the common law limits the response that can be used to protect one's "health."

Lethal force is only allowed if unreasonble risk to human life would result from failing to use such force.

[Emsworth]

It could be argued that anything is a privilege or immunity.

Of course, I entirely agree with you. My only point is that the finding of a right to protect one's health has at least some semblance of an historical basis, unlike the so-called "right to privacy." Stenberg is not as bad as, say, Griswold v. Connecticut.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Partial Birth Abortion is not a medical term. Then ban affects 2nd trimester abortions, makes no exception for the health of the mother, and is clearly unconstitutional.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It could be argued that anything is a privilege or immunity.

Of course, I entirely agree with you. My only point is that the finding of a right to protect one's health has at least some semblance of an historical basis, unlike the so-called "right to privacy." Stenberg is not as bad as, say, Griswold v. Connecticut.

You Republicans seem to have never heard of the 9th amendment.

[A18]

The Ninth Amendment is a rule of construction concerning federal power. The Federalists argued a bill of rights would be dangerous, because by listing various exceptions to powers not granted, you would imply the government had those powers. In other words, you would make the powers seem far more expansive than they actually were.

The Ninth Amendment was simply a response to that.

James Madison, introducing the bill of rights and explaining the ninth amendment:

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

It is clear from the amendment's history and text that it is but a rule of construction, preventing the Bill of Rights from being taken by implication to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated.

Of course, the Ninth Amendment does not apply to the states anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I notice liberals like to use the word "clearly" to mask the fact that they have no clue what they're talking about. Even most Supreme Court justices admit Roe is a bunk ruling, that they only vote to uphold under stare decisis.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Ninth Amendment is a rule of construction concerning federal power. The Federalists argued a bill of rights would be dangerous, because by listing various exceptions to powers not granted, you would imply the government had those powers. In other words, you would make the powers seem far more expansive than they actually were.

The Ninth Amendment was simply a response to that.

James Madison, introducing the bill of rights and explaining the ninth amendment:

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

It is clear from the amendment's history and text that it is but a rule of construction, preventing the Bill of Rights from being taken by implication to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated.

Of course, the Ninth Amendment does not apply to the states anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I notice liberals like to use the word "clearly" to mask the fact that they have no clue what they're talking about. Even most Supreme Court justices admit Roe is a bunk ruling, that they only vote to uphold under stare decisis.

Griswold vs. Connecticut made explicit the implicit right to privacy in the 9th amendment. Roe vs. Wade used that right to privacy to allow abortion,  which had been allowed "pre-quickening" under English common law.

[A18]

I just explained the actual meaning of the Ninth Amendment. Do you have a counterargument, or do you just want to cite irrelevant facts, such one justice's "interpretation" of the amendment (which no one on the current court accepts), or English common law (which is inferior to statute)?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I just explained the actual meaning of the Ninth Amendment. Do you have a counterargument, or do you just want to cite irrelevant facts, such one justice's "interpretation" of the amendment (which no one on the current court accepts), or English common law (which is inferior to statute)?

You are just an anti-Griswold extremist.

[A18]

Another non-argument. Though I suppose it is more intelligent than most of your actual arguments.

[King]

I just explained the actual meaning of the Ninth Amendment. Do you have a counterargument, or do you just want to cite irrelevant facts, such one justice's "interpretation" of the amendment (which no one on the current court accepts), or English common law (which is inferior to statute)?

You are just an anti-Griswold extremist.

Sad 9800 posts, jFRAUD.

[Emsworth]

Griswold vs. Connecticut made explicit the implicit right to privacy in the 9th amendment. Roe vs. Wade used that right to privacy to allow abortion,  which had been allowed "pre-quickening" under English common law.

Just because something happens to be permitted by the common law, it does not follow that it is a constitutionally protected right. Under the common law, a man is allowed to give his wife "domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his servants or children." Does it follow that there is a constitutional right to wife beating?