|
NRL News
Putting
an End to a Barbaric, Infanticidal Practice
“I am pleased that the Supreme Court upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial-birth abortion. 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 partial-birth abortion ban, which an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress passed and I signed into law, represents a commitment to building a culture of life in America.
“The
Supreme Court’s decision is an affirmation of the progress we have
made over the past six years in protecting human dignity and
upholding the sanctity of life. We will continue to work for the day
when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.”
“Simply
describing partial-birth abortion is enough to revolt a majority of
Americans, who have asked time and again for the barbaric,
infanticidal practice to end. Yesterday, the Supreme Court
acknowledged them.”
“If you
have to dress something up to obfuscate the truth of what’s in play,
you can probably assume it’s wrong.” Fourteen years is a long, long time to wait, but victory makes it all worthwhile. So many, many people, some of whom have passed on, were responsible for winning Gonzales v. Carhart. That includes, it is fascinating to note, those whose opinion on abortion is unknown to me. I think, for example, of Judge Richard Conway Casey, who died in late March. For us the symbolism of the AP’s lead sentence is hard to miss: “Richard Conway Casey, who was the nation’s first blind federal trial judge and presided over high-profile cases including an abortion-law challenge and the Peter Gotti trial, has died at 74.” Gotti, of course, was the boss of the Gambino crime family. As the AP reported, “Casey had to overcome skeptics when he took on a load of 300 to 400 cases beginning in late 1997, using computer and audio technology while studying documents and preparing to speak in court.” Some questioned, according to the AP, “whether a blind judge could accurately assess the credibility of a witness he could not see.” His answer? “Casey said truth could be found by following the facts to see if they string together in a coherent, logical way.” And his behavior in the partial-birth abortion case proved one didn’t need 20–20 vision to see the soul-chilling corruption that is part and parcel of this “technique.” Abortionists and pro-abortionists are accustomed to the equivalent of a walk in the park when they come into court. Unfortunately for them, Judge Casey presided over one of the cases challenging the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Judge Casey refused to allow the abortionists and their assorted apologists to hide behind euphemisms. It made for riveting, spell-binding exchanges. Casey’s provocative questioning dragged out the truth—grisly, painful truth—from people accustomed to droning on in antiseptically clean language. Judge Casey ultimately ruled against the federal law, concluding that it was in conflict with the 2000 Supreme Court’s Carhart decision. But the wording of Judge Casey’s opinion was no less candid that his blunt questions: “The Court finds that the testimony at trial and before Congress establishes that D&X [partial-birth abortion] is a gruesome, brutal, barbaric, and uncivilized medical procedure,” he wrote, “[and finds] credible evidence that D&X abortions subject fetuses to severe pain.” I can’t know how carefully Justice Anthony Kennedy read the transcript, but it is clear that several truths that emerged in Judge Casey’s court made their way into the majority opinion written by Kennedy, if in a slightly more discrete tone. For example, Kennedy follows up a professional abortionist’s ho-hum description of “intact D&E” (which is what Kennedy calls partial-birth abortion) with a nurse’s vivid, in English description of what she saw. It is so shockingly violent, it’s enough to make your hair curl. Later, Kennedy adds that, according to Planned Parenthood, “[T]he process [partial-birth abortion] has evolved.” I will spare you the grisly details, except to say that prior to reading about the new iterations, I didn’t think there were further levels to which abortionists could sink. There are six other stories that deal with this historic decision. (See pages 1,2 xxxx.) Let me close here with this. Critics scornfully dismissed the very idea that the “Government,” by banning partial-birth abortions, could “further the legitimate interest of the Government in protecting the life of the fetus that may become a child” when the child can be killed by another abortion technique. To Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, this is absurd. Dead is dead. Kennedy has several responses. “The State’s interest in respect for life is advanced by the dialogue that better informs the political and legal systems, the medical profession, expectant mothers, and society as a whole of the consequences that follow from a decision to elect a late-term abortion.” He also draws to the reader’s attention the particular horror of partial-birth abortion and its capacity to callous both the medical profession and the rest of us. Such linkages are anathema to pro-abortionists, who adamantly insist killing over 48 million unborn children has had zero negative effect on the larger culture. Kennedy disagreed. “It was reasonable for Congress to think that partial-birth abortion, more than standard D&E, ‘undermines the public’s perception of the appropriate role of a physician during the delivery process and perverts a process during which life is brought into the world.’” [The latter quote is from the Congressional Findings.] And then this, which is meaningless to Ginsburg (dead is dead, right?), but vital to the rest of us: “The Act proscribes a method of abortion in which a fetus is killed just inches before completion of the birth process. Congress stated as follows: ‘Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life.’” Then a line that no doubt sent shockwaves through the four dissenters. If “a necessary effect of the regulation and the knowledge it conveys will be to encourage some women to carry the infant to full term,” that outcome will advance “the state’s interest in respect for life.” Imagine that: some children might escape death To answer Ginsburg, how does the ban on partial-birth abortion “further the legitimate interest of the Government in protecting the life of the fetus that may become a child”? By maintaining the public’s confidence that doctors know the difference between delivering a child alive and rationalizing her killing if the same child is three inches closer to the birth canal; by maintaining a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide; by protecting other vulnerable populations; and by saving some kids from all abortion “procedures.” |