Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Upheld by the Supreme Court
Editorial by Dr. Shelton Smith
 

On Wednesday, April 18, 2007, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision which will ban the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion.

The law banning the procedure had been passed twice by the Congress but was vetoed both times (April 1996 and October 1997) by President Clinton. In 2003 the Congress passed it for the third time, and it was signed into law by President Bush on November 5 of that year.

It was immediately challenged in the courts. Three U.S. District Courts—one in California, one in New York and one in Nebraska—all declared the law to be unconstitutional. The federal government appealed those rulings, and the issue wound up on this year’s docket at the Supreme Court.

The vote of the Supreme Court was 5-4. The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. Forming the majority along with him were Justices Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts.

Whether this will significantly reduce the actual number of abortions remains to be seen. The ruling is important because it does stop one way of doing an abortion. But you should know—it does not eliminate abortions. It only prohibits one particular method for doing an abortion.

“More than one million abortions are performed in the United States each year.…Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and are not affected by Wednesday’s ruling” (FOXNews.com).

In case you may have forgotten or have not known what the partial-birth abortion really is, here is a brief description.

“The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act bars a procedure in which, as typically used, an intact baby is delivered feet first until only the head is left in the birth canal. The doctor pierces the base of the infant’s skull with surgical scissors before inserting a catheter into the opening and suctioning out the brain, killing the baby. The technique provides for easier removal of the baby’s head. The law allows an exception if the mother’s life is threatened” (baptist press).

“President Bush, who nominated Roberts and Alito to the High Court, said he was pleased with the ruling, calling it 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’” (baptist press).

Maybe, just maybe, there is beginning to be a restoration of sanity and decency to our society. We are not there yet, but perhaps this is a step in that direction. Consider Justice Kennedy’s further comments:

Doctors had testified in federal courts that they often do not describe either a technique known as dilation and evacuation (D&E) or the partial-birth procedure to women seeking abortions, and Kennedy said the government has an interest in making certain women are “well-informed.”

“It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form,” he wrote. “It is a reasonable inference that a necessary effect of the regulation and the knowledge it conveys will be to encourage some women to carry the infant to full term, thus reducing the absolute number of late-term abortions.”…

Kennedy also quoted a nurse who had witnessed a partial-birth abortion.

“The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking,” the nurse was quoted as saying. “Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startled reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp.…He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.” (baptist press)

The national media gave only passing note to the Court’s decision. The major networks spun the story to favor the abortion crowd, while many major newspapers buried the story deep inside their pages.

The ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts on Tuesday night all ran full stories on the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion [Ban] Act, but while each included arguments from justices in the majority, featured a soundbite from pro-life lawyer Jay Sekulow and offered at least a brief description of the procedure, they all framed the stories in ways favorable to those on the losing side.

All led into competing soundbites by putting abortion supporters on the side of “rights”—describing “abortion-rights supporters” versus “abortion opponents”—characterized the ruling as imposing a further “restriction” on abortion instead of as expanding protection for the unborn, and creatively distanced themselves from the “partial-birth” abortion term.

ABC’s Charles Gibson saw “a long-sought victory for abortion opponents” before Jan Crawford Greenburg fretted that “abortion-rights activists were devastated.”

CBS’s Wyatt Andrews highlighted how “abortion-rights supporters bitterly protested” since “the ban is now the first abortion restriction ever approved with no exception for the health of the mother.”

NBC’s Chip Reid related that “abortion-rights activists worry this may be only the start of a campaign to limit abortion rights.”

…With “5-4 ruling upholds federal ban on so-called ‘partial-birth abortion’” on screen, ABC anchor Gibson brought in ideology as he announced that “the court’s new conservative majority today upheld a nationwide ban on a controversial procedure, one that critics call ‘partial-birth abortion.’” …

Over on the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric referred to “a controversial late-term abortion procedure,” and Wyatt Andrews reported on “what Congress called ‘partial-birth abortions.’” (LifeNews.com)

None of this coverage is surprising. Anyone who has paid any attention to this debate over the years knows full well which side most of the media are on.

Every one of us needs to understand that politics, the judiciary and great issues like abortion are all closely related.

The ACLU and other liberals want the rest of us to “stay out of politics.” If we sit idly by when liberals are trying to be elected to public office, we have merely aided and abetted the crime (when abortions are done).

The facts are—the politicians, namely, the president and the U.S. Senate, determine who sits on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then determines what’s legal and what’s not.

If “strict constructionist” judges are appointed, the liberal agenda will be thwarted and ultimately stricken down.

If “social activist” judges are appointed, then abortion and the rest of the liberal agenda move forward.

Roe v. Wade yet remains the law of the land. Babies are being butchered in the womb by the thousands every single day in the USA.

We must press forward! We must not remain silent while this horror continues unabated! We must not give up on this until the killing stops!