SCOTUS convened today to hear arguments regarding the Constitutionality of the ban on partial birth abortion. Fr. Frank Pavone, President of Priests for Life, was there, and has this to say:
Half-fetus, half-child
Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director
In one of his few remarks during the two hours of arguments in the Supreme Court today about partial-birth abortion, Justice Scalia responded to Justice Stevens' assertion that we should say "fetus" rather than child.. Justice Scalia said, "half-fetus, half-child."
The point was clear. This is not simply about abortion. This is a hijacking of the delivery process for the purpose of killing the child. This is infanticide. I don't know why Justice Scalia was otherwise so quiet, and Justice Alito completely silent during the arguments, but I know one reason I would be. The barbarity of partial-birth abortion is so self-evidently wrong that it is beyond dispute, beyond discussion, that it should not be legal in our country - or anywhere else, for that matter. Silence in this matter speaks volumes.
In the course of the two hours of oral arguments, the Court considered three key reasons why abortion advocates want the Court to strike down the Federal ban on partial-birth abortion: a) the ban lacks a health exception; b) the ban is too broad, that is, by its wording it actually bans most if not all second and third trimester D&E (dismemberment) abortions rather than just partial-birth abortion, and c) the ban is vague, and because the language is not clear and specific enough, doctors won't know if it really applies to them.
Having listened carefully to the oral arguments and having read all the briefs, I don't think the abortion advocates made their case, and I don't think a majority of the Justices think they did either.
One of the most important admissions made in the arguments by the pro-abortion side was that we really have no measurements about what kind of a health need is met by partial-birth abortion. Their key argument, after all, is that the procedure must be allowed for the sake of women's health. They admitted that the Court could ban this procedure if its health advantages were minimal rather than significant, yet they could not establish, by statistical measurement, the assertion that the health advantages of partial-birth abortion are significant.
In regard to safety, one of the key questions from Chief Justice Roberts was that if, as the abortionists claim, partial-birth abortion is safer because it requires fewer insertions of instruments into the woman's body, why would it not then also follow that the safest method is live birth altogether, with the killing of the child outside the womb? The pro-abortion side did not have an answer to that specific question, which proves the point that Congress and the Bush Administration make, namely, that this procedure must be banned so that society has a clear barrier against infanticide.
Isn't it just amazing that in our highest court in this great nation, this debate occurred today about the legality of "dismemberment" and "pulling the arms and legs off" a child. In the end, it's not a matter of which version of killing should be used. It's a matter of stopping the killing altogether.
Remember to support our work at www.priestsforlife.org/donate
Failure for this Court to uphold the ban will be a failure on so many levels, and a tacit approval of the barbarity that is abortion.
The "health of the mother" clause demanded by the Culture of Death leftists holds no water with the case of late-term abortions; as the only difference between delivering of a live late-term baby or a dead, dismembered baby is literally a matter of inches.
A late term baby can just as easily be delivered live as dead.
Perhaps the biggest catastrophe of yesterday's elections is apparent in the fact that we may need to wait much longer before getting another Scalia or Roberts or Alito on the bench.
And literally millions of innocents may never see the light of day as a result.
GOD save our nation.
Posted by leo at November 9, 2006 12:28 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/crawford.cgi/7896
Comments
Leo,
Yeah, but in the Godless Church of Liberalism and Latter Day Socialism, abortion is a sacrament.
I'll never understand it...
Posted by: Mark Noonan at November 9, 2006 12:59 AM
I as a woman and a mother, I get physically ill (literally) when I read/hear about all this abortion BS.
It is digusting. It should make anyone's inside knot up, like it does mine. To know that little babies are being tortured and murdered all awhile alive and feeling it.
I am tears as I read what he wrote. The reality of what really happens to those poor innocent babys.
Im so sick of the "its my body, my choice" argument. That is the biggest bunch of BS. And it disgusts me more when a mother says it. A mother who has carried a baby to full term.
Uggg.
Posted by: AFWIFE at November 9, 2006 01:45 AM
Again, someone telll me of a few medical reasons why partial birth abortion is better than either inducing labor or having a C-section to get the baby out? Anyone? From my understanding Partial birth abortion is the killing of the baby that could very well live out of the mother. Especially since we have premature babies surviving outside with help of course months early, and even just a month the baby tends to do okay.
So can anyone explain why we're cutting off limbs of babies in their mother's? Anyone?
Posted by:
Gozer at November 9, 2006 02:12 AM
AFWIFE, as a wife and mother, I am with you 110%, and more and more women are coming forward to testify to the reality that abortion has not delivered on it promises. Wonder why?
Fetus vs baby has been a very clever deception by pro-abortion forces. They use the term as if it denotes a different life form when it simply denotes a different stage of development. What disgusting lies, but that is the only way abortion can be justified.
Posted by: CeCe at November 9, 2006 07:28 AM
Things like this just break my heart. I believe that as far as "my body, my choice" goes, a woman's choice should end when the man's choice does. I am so worried for my kids and the world they will have to deal with when they are adults.
Posted by: Dorothy Bogdan at November 9, 2006 08:02 AM
Leo,
For what's it's worth, I agree with you. Even though I'm a liberal I think late-term abortions should be banned except in the case of the life of the mother.
I still vote Democrat. But as many have noticed there are more pro-life democrats being elected now. This can only be taken as a good sign.
You conservatives are right when you say that many libs forget what human rights are when the human is not yet born. I can't appologize for them; but I can support pro-life Dems will help drive the truly wacko "kill everything at all costs" Dems from our party.
I know the progress toward life is agonizingly slow. But if this election is a guide the Dems will eventually stop supporting the truly horrific positions that SOME of them take.
The world in the future WILL be better than the one we are in now.
Posted by: Jim Oliver at November 9, 2006 12:03 PM
Thanks, Jim--
It's good to know that there are good democrats who want their party back. Keep up the fight.
Posted by:
Leo Pusateri at November 9, 2006 12:20 PM
"...except in the case of the life of the mother.
Remember Jim--with advanced medical technologies, babies are being allowed to live outside of the womb earlier and earlier.
If a mother's life, as you say, is threatened by an ongoing pregnancy, many babies can still be delivered alive.
Posted by:
Leo Pusateri at November 9, 2006 12:24 PM
Leo,
I agree. Medical science will eventually replace abortion with some kind of surgical delivery, making abortion increasingly rare. That day can't arrive soon enough, but in the meantime I will support pro-life (or at least moderate) Dems.
I like John Salazar (he's not my rep but he's near my district), who at least voted for the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. Maybe with some Dems like this we can make some changes in this upcoming congress.
If the Dems keep to their "pro death" policies I will be saddened as there won't be a party for me anymore (as you know I'm way to liberal otherwise for the Repubs). I hope that day never comes.
Posted by: Jim Oliver at November 9, 2006 01:07 PM
Did you ever think which is worse: Killing a baby or controlling the lives of millions of people? I know which one benefits you with power.
Posted by: USA at November 9, 2006 05:58 PM
This procedure is only performed when the fetus has severe birth defects, and has NEVER been forced on anyone against their will.
So, you people who care sooo much about the babies, how many unwanted babies have you adopted and brought home to raise as your own? I'm guessing - zero. Am I right or wrong?
Posted by: David J at November 9, 2006 06:03 PM
Leo,
This is one reason I feel a sense of shame today towards all the republicans/conservatives, who either chose not to vote on Tuesday, or voted democrat to "teach the Republicans a lesson". We are one justice away from changing the direction of the US Supreme Court, and at the worst possible time to cut their nose off to spite their face, we lose the senate and house. How do we explain that to millions of children who will die because of their senseless tantrum. President Bush has been attacked by the libs and liberal media, like no other President in history. All the while, he has tried to do his best to protect us and has been successful for the last 5 years. He killed himself trying to confront hard issues like social security reform, tax reform and immigration reform, in good faith and with class. The conservatives thanked President Bush by handing him a hostile congress for the last 2 years of his presidency. Why? Because President Bush, republican congressmen and senators did not reach their level of conservative perfection. They have done their best with the cards they had and the rinos and libs obstructing at every turn. The libs were 100 times worse, but now they are in power. The libs have done nothing the last 5 years to earn anyones vote. They were contemptable in their aid and comfort of the enemy solely for political gain. Yet, these republicans rewarded them for it. These cut and run republicans make me feel ashamed today and I think alot of fellow conservatives feel the same. As much damage as Lincoln Chafee may have done, these cut and run conservatives have done far worse.
Posted by: james allegro at November 9, 2006 08:43 PM
"the truly wacko "kill everything at all costs" Dems"
Jim Oliver: If you believe this, you need to get you head checked. Your way out of line.
Posted by: USA at November 9, 2006 09:02 PM
USA, It was a metaphor. Some Dems support positions which are far beyond the mainstream.
Justice Roberts brought up the most devastating question against late-term abortion when he asked about inducing a live birth and killing the baby on the outside. Anybody who advocates late term abortions should also advocate this procedure.
I doubt few dems really in their hearts beleive that this procedure would be a good thing. But the positions that SOME dems take are functionally equivalent to this, and so the labels "wacko" and "kill everything" are really not that far off.
I've tried to convince myself to be 100% pro-choice, since I side with the radical liberals on every other social issue. But a late term fetus is clearly a baby--there is simply no logical way around this.
We Dems will eventually purge ourselves of the most radical pro-choice supporters, and when we do we will be a stronger and far more ethical party. With some of these new Dems I hope that this day will happen sooner rather than later.
Posted by: Jim Oliver at November 10, 2006 01:59 AM
Jim, I really appreciate your comments. I am definitly a conservative, but I am "liberal" on a few issues (death penalty for one). I was very heartened to see that the Democrats had put forth candidates who were far more conservative than the party in general, particularly on the abortion issue, and these candidates won. What do you think their influence will be allowed to be in the party? It seems to me that they will be silenced given the leadership right now. I can't imagine them being given a real voice in determining where the party will go, even though they will vote as individuals. I would be interested in your thoughts.
Posted by: CeCe at November 10, 2006 11:03 AM
USA, controlling millions of people's lives? What are you talking about?
David, get a clue. Dr. Tiller himself has said that the majority of late term abortions he has done have been on healthy babies of healthy mothers. Besides, since when should being disabled be a death sentence?
Posted by: CeCe at November 10, 2006 11:06 AM
CeCe,
The leadership doesn't control the rank and file Dems. IF a Dem can stand up and introduce legislation, or find a bi-partisan group to do so, It will pass.
Now there is not going to be a whole lot of legislation, and what does get passed will be far less than most conservatives want. But you guys can always win elections again...just run better elephants.
I think the Dems will win the presidency in 08. If so, I hope the republicans filibuster some of the judges. I think judicial filibusters are a very good thing, as it prevents the party with a tiny majority from appointing radicals. Most of the best judges (Roberts as a prime example) are near the center. Not sure yet about Alito, but I don't like Thomas and Scalia. I agree with Ginsburg 99% of the time...that 1% bothers me.
The republicans will have to admit to being extremely two-faced if they fillibuster a judge...as a true lib on most issues I won't mind watching this...:)
Posted by: Jim Oliver at November 10, 2006 12:00 PM
Jim, I agree that any legislation that might proposed will not be as conservative as I would like certainly, but I would be happy with any improvement in the current situation. I guess what I was getting at is do you think the leadership will tolerate this kind of dissent? While you can argue the leadership doesn't control the individual, I think the leadership of both parties does exert a good amount of control over what positions are put forth in the form of legislation, etc. This is the first election that I can recall when the national Democratic party openly solicited individuals who were even remotely pro-life, let alone anyone who was unabashedly so. It does seem a change of approach, and do you think it will last?
I'm not sure the republicans will fillibuster a judge unless there is some glaring problem. They didn't with Ginsberg and she is as far from conservative as they come. I wish they would too, and yes, it would certainly be a change for them.
Posted by: CeCe at November 10, 2006 04:15 PM
Please report any inappropriate comments to abuse (at) blogsforbush (dot) com. Be sure to include the title of the blog entry, the name of the commenter, and the text of the offending comment.
Post a comment
Leo,
Yeah, but in the Godless Church of Liberalism and Latter Day Socialism, abortion is a sacrament.
I'll never understand it...
I as a woman and a mother, I get physically ill (literally) when I read/hear about all this abortion BS.
It is digusting. It should make anyone's inside knot up, like it does mine. To know that little babies are being tortured and murdered all awhile alive and feeling it.
I am tears as I read what he wrote. The reality of what really happens to those poor innocent babys.
Im so sick of the "its my body, my choice" argument. That is the biggest bunch of BS. And it disgusts me more when a mother says it. A mother who has carried a baby to full term.
Uggg.
Again, someone telll me of a few medical reasons why partial birth abortion is better than either inducing labor or having a C-section to get the baby out? Anyone? From my understanding Partial birth abortion is the killing of the baby that could very well live out of the mother. Especially since we have premature babies surviving outside with help of course months early, and even just a month the baby tends to do okay.
So can anyone explain why we're cutting off limbs of babies in their mother's? Anyone?
AFWIFE, as a wife and mother, I am with you 110%, and more and more women are coming forward to testify to the reality that abortion has not delivered on it promises. Wonder why?
Fetus vs baby has been a very clever deception by pro-abortion forces. They use the term as if it denotes a different life form when it simply denotes a different stage of development. What disgusting lies, but that is the only way abortion can be justified.
Things like this just break my heart. I believe that as far as "my body, my choice" goes, a woman's choice should end when the man's choice does. I am so worried for my kids and the world they will have to deal with when they are adults.
Leo,
For what's it's worth, I agree with you. Even though I'm a liberal I think late-term abortions should be banned except in the case of the life of the mother.
I still vote Democrat. But as many have noticed there are more pro-life democrats being elected now. This can only be taken as a good sign.
You conservatives are right when you say that many libs forget what human rights are when the human is not yet born. I can't appologize for them; but I can support pro-life Dems will help drive the truly wacko "kill everything at all costs" Dems from our party.
I know the progress toward life is agonizingly slow. But if this election is a guide the Dems will eventually stop supporting the truly horrific positions that SOME of them take.
The world in the future WILL be better than the one we are in now.
Thanks, Jim--
It's good to know that there are good democrats who want their party back. Keep up the fight.
Remember Jim--with advanced medical technologies, babies are being allowed to live outside of the womb earlier and earlier.
If a mother's life, as you say, is threatened by an ongoing pregnancy, many babies can still be delivered alive.
Leo,
I agree. Medical science will eventually replace abortion with some kind of surgical delivery, making abortion increasingly rare. That day can't arrive soon enough, but in the meantime I will support pro-life (or at least moderate) Dems.
I like John Salazar (he's not my rep but he's near my district), who at least voted for the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. Maybe with some Dems like this we can make some changes in this upcoming congress.
If the Dems keep to their "pro death" policies I will be saddened as there won't be a party for me anymore (as you know I'm way to liberal otherwise for the Repubs). I hope that day never comes.
Did you ever think which is worse: Killing a baby or controlling the lives of millions of people? I know which one benefits you with power.
This procedure is only performed when the fetus has severe birth defects, and has NEVER been forced on anyone against their will.
So, you people who care sooo much about the babies, how many unwanted babies have you adopted and brought home to raise as your own? I'm guessing - zero. Am I right or wrong?
Leo,
This is one reason I feel a sense of shame today towards all the republicans/conservatives, who either chose not to vote on Tuesday, or voted democrat to "teach the Republicans a lesson". We are one justice away from changing the direction of the US Supreme Court, and at the worst possible time to cut their nose off to spite their face, we lose the senate and house. How do we explain that to millions of children who will die because of their senseless tantrum. President Bush has been attacked by the libs and liberal media, like no other President in history. All the while, he has tried to do his best to protect us and has been successful for the last 5 years. He killed himself trying to confront hard issues like social security reform, tax reform and immigration reform, in good faith and with class. The conservatives thanked President Bush by handing him a hostile congress for the last 2 years of his presidency. Why? Because President Bush, republican congressmen and senators did not reach their level of conservative perfection. They have done their best with the cards they had and the rinos and libs obstructing at every turn. The libs were 100 times worse, but now they are in power. The libs have done nothing the last 5 years to earn anyones vote. They were contemptable in their aid and comfort of the enemy solely for political gain. Yet, these republicans rewarded them for it. These cut and run republicans make me feel ashamed today and I think alot of fellow conservatives feel the same. As much damage as Lincoln Chafee may have done, these cut and run conservatives have done far worse.
"the truly wacko "kill everything at all costs" Dems"
Jim Oliver: If you believe this, you need to get you head checked. Your way out of line.
USA, It was a metaphor. Some Dems support positions which are far beyond the mainstream.
Justice Roberts brought up the most devastating question against late-term abortion when he asked about inducing a live birth and killing the baby on the outside. Anybody who advocates late term abortions should also advocate this procedure.
I doubt few dems really in their hearts beleive that this procedure would be a good thing. But the positions that SOME dems take are functionally equivalent to this, and so the labels "wacko" and "kill everything" are really not that far off.
I've tried to convince myself to be 100% pro-choice, since I side with the radical liberals on every other social issue. But a late term fetus is clearly a baby--there is simply no logical way around this.
We Dems will eventually purge ourselves of the most radical pro-choice supporters, and when we do we will be a stronger and far more ethical party. With some of these new Dems I hope that this day will happen sooner rather than later.
Jim, I really appreciate your comments. I am definitly a conservative, but I am "liberal" on a few issues (death penalty for one). I was very heartened to see that the Democrats had put forth candidates who were far more conservative than the party in general, particularly on the abortion issue, and these candidates won. What do you think their influence will be allowed to be in the party? It seems to me that they will be silenced given the leadership right now. I can't imagine them being given a real voice in determining where the party will go, even though they will vote as individuals. I would be interested in your thoughts.
USA, controlling millions of people's lives? What are you talking about?
David, get a clue. Dr. Tiller himself has said that the majority of late term abortions he has done have been on healthy babies of healthy mothers. Besides, since when should being disabled be a death sentence?
CeCe,
The leadership doesn't control the rank and file Dems. IF a Dem can stand up and introduce legislation, or find a bi-partisan group to do so, It will pass.
Now there is not going to be a whole lot of legislation, and what does get passed will be far less than most conservatives want. But you guys can always win elections again...just run better elephants.
I think the Dems will win the presidency in 08. If so, I hope the republicans filibuster some of the judges. I think judicial filibusters are a very good thing, as it prevents the party with a tiny majority from appointing radicals. Most of the best judges (Roberts as a prime example) are near the center. Not sure yet about Alito, but I don't like Thomas and Scalia. I agree with Ginsburg 99% of the time...that 1% bothers me.
The republicans will have to admit to being extremely two-faced if they fillibuster a judge...as a true lib on most issues I won't mind watching this...:)
Jim, I agree that any legislation that might proposed will not be as conservative as I would like certainly, but I would be happy with any improvement in the current situation. I guess what I was getting at is do you think the leadership will tolerate this kind of dissent? While you can argue the leadership doesn't control the individual, I think the leadership of both parties does exert a good amount of control over what positions are put forth in the form of legislation, etc. This is the first election that I can recall when the national Democratic party openly solicited individuals who were even remotely pro-life, let alone anyone who was unabashedly so. It does seem a change of approach, and do you think it will last?
I'm not sure the republicans will fillibuster a judge unless there is some glaring problem. They didn't with Ginsberg and she is as far from conservative as they come. I wish they would too, and yes, it would certainly be a change for them.