Monday, April 23, 2007

Thank YOU! Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban on 5-4 Decision

Graphic reposted by permisson from Political Cartoons by Henry Blog *check him out because he is awesome!

Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban on 5-4 Decision
Washington, DC ( -- The Supreme Court has reversed a decision it handed down in 2000 and upheld a Congressional ban on the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure. The ruling indicated that the federal ban on the abortion procedure did not violate the so-called right to abortion established under Roe v. Wade. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for the Supreme Court and indicated that the abortion advocates who sued to overturn the ban "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases." President Bush signed the national partial-birth abortion ban into law in 2003 and abortion advocates took it to court in three separate lawsuits and federal courts in each case relied on the Supreme Court's decision in 2000 and declared the ban unconstitutional. Saying the "decision is alarming," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented in the case and said the court should have followed its previous decision on the controversial abortions. Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined her in the dissent. The ruling is the first major abortion case in which new Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito have ruled, perhaps giving a clue as to their views on Roe itself. Read the complete story.

Partial-BirthAbortion Ban Decision Could Lead to Overturning Roe v. Wade
Washington, DC ( -- The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the federal ban on partial-birth abortions could pave the way to a ruling reversing the high court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that toppled pro-life laws across the country. That's something pro-life advocates relish and pro-abortion activists fear. The thought is that if the high court could reverse its 2000 decision on partial-birth abortion that it could change its mind on abortion itself as well. Wednesday's ruling is the first major abortion case in which new Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito have ruled, perhaps giving a clue as to their views on Roe itself. The pair might very well join Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and a fifth justice in the future who would form a five-judge group giving it the majority on the high court for the first time since the landmark 1973 case. A fifth judge is needed because Justice Kennedy supports Roe despite his joining the majority in the partial-birth abortion case and writing the main opinion. Abortion advocates sense the thread Roe v. Wade is hanging by and communicated their fears to supporters in emails sent out on Wednesday. NARAL president Nancy Keenan worried that, with the partial-birth abortion decision, "the Supreme Court has not only supported an abortion ban with no exception for a woman's health, it has given the green light to the anti-choice movement's plan to outlaw abortion entirely." Read the complete story.

GOP Prez Candidates Back Partial-Birth Abortion Ruling, Democrats Opposed
Washington, DC ( -- Republican and Democratic candidates for president in 2008 predictably took different positions in response to a Supreme Court ruling on Wednesday upholding a federal ban on the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure. GOP candidates supported the high court's decision while Democrats opposed it. On the Republican side, the candidates who lead in most polls -- ex-New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain -- both side they agreed with the decision. "I'm very happy about the decision given my position on abortion. Partial birth is one of the most odious aspects of abortion," he said at a campaign stop in South Carolina. "It is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life." Meanwhile, Giuliani said, "The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it." Giuliani previously opposed a ban on partial-birth abortions but told Fox News in February he had changed his position on it. In a statement to, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback indicated he also supported the partial-birth abortion ban ruling. “This ban was enacted to put an end to one of the most grotesque forms of abortion, and it is completely in line with the respect for life that is at the very heart of our Constitution," he said. "This is a great step forward for our nation's citizens, born and unborn.” Of the Democrats running for president, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware voted for the ban while Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut voted against it. North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, missed votes on the ban running for president but said he doesn't support it.Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, also opposes the partial-birth abortion ban and the high court's ruling and said he is "extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures" to do more to stop abortions. Read the complete story.

President Bush Applauds Supreme Court Ruling on Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Washington, DC ( -- President Bush said on Wednesday that he was pleased with the Supreme Court ruling upholding a ban on partial-birth abortions that he signed into law in 2003. Bush's signature was a departure from former President Bill Clinton, who vetoed bans on partial-birth abortion and drew the ire of the pro-life movement. "I am pleased that the Supreme Court upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial-birth abortion," the president said in a statement received from the White House. He said he appreciated that the nation's high court allowed legislatures to make law on important issues like abortion rather than creating it from the bench. "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," he said. Bush pointed out that "an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress passed" the bill. The partial-birth abortion ban is a part of the numerous pro-life actions the president has taken during his tenure saying it "represents a commitment to building a culture of life in America." Read the complete story.

Pro-Life Groups Want Ban Enforced at New Jersey Partial-Birth Abortion Ctr
Englewood, NJ ( -- Now that the Supreme Court has upheld a national ban on the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure, pro-life groups are turning their attention to enforcement of it. They're starting in New Jersey at an abortion center that likely does more partial-birth abortions than anywhere in the country. Several pro-life groups, including New Jersey Right to Life, the Legal Center for Defense of Life and Crossing Over Ministry held a press conference yesterday outside the Metropolitan Medical Associates abortion business. In September 1996, Metropolitan admitted to doing 1,500 partial birth abortions a year, most on healthy mothers of healthy babies. "The practical consequences of today's decision take place right here in Englewood," Richard Collier, president of the pro-life law firm, told in a statement. "We're here to call on U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie to enforce the statute against Metropolitan if it continues to do partial-birth abortions," he said. Marie Tasy, executive director of New Jersey Right to Life, said her group was pleased that the high court upheld the partial-birth abortion ban but "We want to make sure that the ban will be enforced." Read the complete story.

Associated Press Story Misleads on Partial-Birth Abortion Polling
New York, NY ( -- Responding to the Supreme Court's decision on Wednesday upholding a federal ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure, the Associated Press ran a sidebar news story concerning the current state of abortion polls. However, the news article erroneously claimed that Americans do not support a ban. "Most Americans favor some restrictions on abortion, though not the outright ban on late-term abortions addressed by Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling," the news agency said. However, polls from a variety of media and other sources find Americans consistently support a partial-birth abortion ban in a broad bipartisan fashion. A late July 2006 poll by Quinnipiac University found 76 percent of Americans believe partial-birth abortions should be illegal except when necessary to save the life of the mother. Only 15 percent supported the partial-birth abortion procedure. And, in March 2006, a Fox News poll found that Americans back a partial-birth abortion ban by a 61-28 percent margin with even Democrats (51-35 percent) supporting it. Women (66-23) were more likely than men (55-32) to support the ban on the gruesome abortion procedure. Read the complete story.

States Could Seek More Abortion Limits Thanks to Supreme Court's Decision
Washington, DC ( -- One of the benefits of the Supreme Court's decision Wednesday upholding the national partial-birth abortion ban is that it could assist state legislative efforts to reduce abortions. The ruling also touched on the rights of states to limit abortions but also contained an important legal ramification. Writing for the 5-4 majority in the case, Justice Anthony Kennedy affirmed that "The government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life." "The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman," he wrote in the ruling. "The court has given state and federal legislatures wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty,'' Kennedy added. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council also commented on the important legal outcomes resulting from the decision. "The opinion also seems to indicate that the Court is rethinking the way in which challenges are brought by the abortion lobby to every statute affecting abortions," he told "For years, the abortion lobby has been able to stop almost all legislation by 'facial challenges,'" he explained. "Now, perhaps, they will have to prove their case in court, as everyone else has to do." Read the complete story.

Media Frames Coverage of Supreme Court Case From Pro-Abortion Viewpoint
by Brent Baker
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 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." Read the complete story.

Pro-Life Groups React to Supreme Court Decision on Partial-Birth Abortion
Washington, DC ( -- Pro-life groups are elated about yesterday's Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on partial-birth abortions. The decision was a reversal of a 2000 ruling that overturned a Nebraska ban on the gruesome abortion procedure and invalidated the bans passed in other state legislatures. The National Right to Life Committee complained that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her allies "blocked this law for 12 years." "But finally, it is illegal in America to mostly deliver a premature infant before puncturing her skull and removing her brain, which is what a partial-birth abortion is," NRLC's legislative director Douglas Johnson told Nikolas Nikas, the Bioethics Defense Fund president and general counsel, told about some of the legal aspects of the court's decision. He said it seems to signal the Supreme Court's rejection of unsupported and speculative facial challenges consistently brought by the abortion industry to strike down reasonable abortion regulations. That could be good news for state legislation that sometimes runs into roadblocks at the local and appeals court level as attorneys defending the laws now have another strong case to cite to defend them. Serrin Foster, the president of Feminists for Life, said the court was especially moved this time by testimony during the federal appeals court hearings about the actual method of partial-birth abortion. “This is a procedure that hurts women,” Foster said. “After three days of intense, forced labor, the doctors stop the delivery, kill the child by stabbing it in the back of the head, drain the baby’s brains, and discard the baby. At the end of this procedure, the woman has an empty womb, empty arms and a hole in her heart.” Read the complete story.

Encourage Friends to Sign Up for Free Pro-Life News From


  1. This is AWESOME news!!  I really enjoyed reading up on it though I had to skim a lot due to being a bit pressed for time right now.  I am just really glad to hear we are finally making progress against abortion.  Hugs,

  2. I have been protesting legalized abortion for 35 years, since Roe and Wade, in the form of letters, and have written about it a number of times in my journal.  The last one I wrote was on this action taken by the Supreme Court as viewed by Kathleen Parker of the Washington post.  The one previous ws on Ellen Goodman's reaction of the Boston Globe who is pro abortion.  I have written protesting many of her articles over the years, but my newspaper, Arizona Republic, had a pro abortion staff and would not print any of them!  I think the editor of the editorial page just changed, and perhaps he will be more fair.  I would like to prescribe to the on line pro life publication you mention, so when I have time I will go to their website.  I am 75.  I also covered abortion in my memoirs as my mothr aborted a child with a catheter and my sister did one, atlest, if not two.  I had a terrible promonition when she told me that she did not have long to live, and she died of ovarian cancer at 51.  It is my contention that if you do not regard life as sacred you tend not to value your own life as well, and she did not follow doctor's advice. It was all so sad, so heart wrenching for the family.  So far in my memoirs I have just covered my mother's abortion  Gerry