Partial Birth Abortion Ban Revisited

Listen to the audio version or read the post below.
Note: Clips of actual court room arguments can be heard in audio version

Click To Play

As Conservatives we were handed a crushing defeat last week as we not only saw the Republicans lose control of the House and Senate but we also watched our best chances of defending Judeo-Christian morals and values seemingly slip away.

With Liberals in charge of Congress and at best split 50/50 in the Supreme Court, we could very well be in for a year of disappointment and tragedy in 2007.

Many battles are before us and what shocks me is just how few realize that a major battle has already begun. Last week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case to decide the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion ban passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2003. President Bush’s Solicitor General Paul Clement is arguing on the side of the American people and on the other side are two lawyers who represent Planned parenthood. Paul Clement called the practice of partial birth abortion, "a particularly gruesome procedure that blurred the line between abortion and infanticide.” To which the Liberal Justice Ginsburg countered saying that since "Fetal Demise" could take place through other abortion procedures this case was not about infanticide. Clement went on to urge the court not to trivialize Congress's concern about fetal life.

But Ginsburg would not be swayed, she continued to call Clement's comment a mischaracterization of infanticide. Clement went on to assert that while we accept that procedures occurring inside the womb are considered abortion, once the child has emerged from the woman's body Clement said, Quote, "I think we call that murder."
Listen to this exchange between the two (clip 1a)
And there-in lies the heart of the argument. How is it that we have come so far in this debate and still we are arguing about whether or not a baby is a baby when the difference is four inches? With this case we have placed the assessment of when a human life is infact a human life simply on the basis of location. If a baby is even one inch inside the mother's womb can you say that that child who has an 89% chance of living is still not a viable human life? How is it that abortion can be used to redefine what being a human is. you can take a baby who is in it's mother's arms and it is considered a human but if you take that same baby and move it 4 inches back into it's mother's womb and it is no longer a human! How can this be? This case actually is defining what a human being is based on it's location and not any other specification.This too was addressed in the case.(Clip 1) It is simple if the child is outside of the mother it is MURDER and if it is still inside of the mother it is an abortion.

Partial Birth abortion is absurd!

I realize that I may be talking over some people's heads here and perhaps you don't fully understand what partial birth abortion is. You see in a Partial Birth Abortion or as the Liberals call it a 'Late Term Abortion', a mother carries a child to 5 1/2 months, an age at which the child could survive outside the womb. The Doctor then reaches in with forceps and clamps down on the little feet and pulls the baby out of the canal and then when the baby's body is completely out of the womb save the head which is about four inches inside the mother the Doctor stabs the baby's head with scissors and opens a hole. A suction catheter is inserted and the baby's brains and skull contents are sucked out collapsing the head! The baby is then completely removed and discarded as if it were a byproduct of a processing plant.


The advocates of this cruel and needless procedure namely Planned Parenthood say that this is done to prevent harm to a mother who otherwise could not safely give birth. NON-SENSE! This is done for one simple purpose, it is to blur the political lines between viability of a fetus and the definition of Abortion. It is simply a ploy to further strengthen the political argument that abortion is a necessary medical procedure to remove a useless tissue. Liberal supporters of this procedure hold it up as if it were their religious Sacrament. "Thou shalt perform abortions regardless of risk to the mother or age of the fetus." is number two in their collection of Commandments.

If a woman can carry a child for 24 weeks and then give birth to 90% of him, what is the threshold of danger to the mother? This is ridiculous and I don't think only Conservative Christians can see the idiocy of such an argument! Regardless of your beliefs, you cannot look at this gruesome and murderous procedure and say with a straight face that it is in the best interest of the mother!

But there's more to this argument. You see, in 2003 the President and the men and women of Congress who were elected by American citizens to speak for American citizens, decided that this procedure should be banned. Then Planned Parenthood took yours and My tax money from that same Congress to the tune of 265 Million Dollars and then turns around and uses that money to sue Congress to overturn their rulings. Because you and I are giving our money hard earned tax money to them they are able to use their money to perform 250 thousand abortions per year! That's right we have given Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in THE WORLD, more than 1.5 BILLION dollars in the past few years.

So how do we stop this? Well Louisiana Senator David Vitter has proposed a bill titled Senate Bill 2206 which plainly states that: “None of the funds appropriated under this title (that's title Ten) shall be distributed to grantees who perform abortions or whose subgrantees perform abortions…”
Jay Sekulow and the people at ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) have been trying to get people to support this bill for weeks. You can support this bill by calling 877-989-2255. Or go online to http://www.aclj.org/

Some may ask if our chances of getting this bill passed are very good when you take into consideration that Democrats have taken over power in Congress. And that would be a tough question to answer. When the Democrats won they won because the moved from the far left and took Conservative positions in their campaigns. If they hold true to these principals and serve the will of the people as they promised then we have a shot. But if they return to the anti Christian values pro socialist ways we can probably see this bill go down in defeat!

What gets me folks is that our elected officials in Congress and our elected president set a statute banning this procedure. They represent you and I the will of the people. Yet our will is easily thwarted by 9 members of what amounts to an oligarchy. The Supreme court should have no right to come in and overturn our will on these matters. But since they do have that right it is important that we elect Conservative Justices that will uphold the Constitution and not make personal policy decisions.

The case at hand Planned Parenthood vs. the Attorney General of the United States hinges almost completely on the decision of a somewhat Liberal Justice Kennedy. In the 2000 case Justice Kennedy said in his dissent or in support of the ban, "a procedure many decent and civilized people find so abhorrent as to be among the most serious of crimes against human life." he went on to write, "The majority views the procedures from the perspective of the abortionist, rather than from the perspective of a society shocked when confronted with a new method of ending human life,"
If the same Justice Kennedy shows up when they decide this case we will win. The deciding vote in the last case fell to the ever so unreliable Justice Sandra Dey O'Connor. Now we have Justice Alito in her place. So in this instance we see the onus falling on justice Kennedy to make the deciding vote.

We do have reason to hope in this instance. I borrowed this from the Jay Sekulow Live broadcast which you can subscribe to by going to oneplace.com and selecting Jay Sekulow Live to download podcasts or MP3s. Let's listen to what Justice Kennedy had to say to the Planned Parenthood lawyer. (Clip 3)
She is trying to twist his words but everyone can plainly tell that that was not what he said, he is basically saying that the state can prohibit this procedure even if it is the safest procedure. But we all know that is beside the case because it has not been proven to be the safest procedure in any instance! Lets listen to a little more of this exchange (clip 4)
Folks these people are going to continue to murder the yet to be born among us. They have more than 600 Million Dollars of revenue per year without our money. I say we stand up against these people and tell them we will not give our tax dollars to Planned Parenthood so they can overturn our laws and kill babies in our name!
Go to http://www.aclj.org/ and sign the petition to support Sen. Vitters Bill and lets stop funding Planned Parenthood.
Lets also pray for Justice Kennedy and pray that he does the right thing here. The lives of innocent late term babies are at stake.
May God bless and keep you.