|
Just another day 4/18/2007
Pro-life organizations claim a great victory.
Some consider this as evidence that incremental efforts to end abortion
are working.
This ruling furthered the unconstitutional Roe v
Wade decision and this was embraced by Bush's appointees,
Roberts and Alito. To their credit, Scalia and Thomas made a
stand against Roe.
First,
as previously explained,
the bill against partial birth abortion adopted in 2003 will not
save a single baby, even according to the main bill sponsor,
Senator Rick Santorum. So why all the fuss? Why go
through all the legal battles, not to save a single child?
Good question.
| Quote from Court Opinion of Gonzales v Carhart, p
10-11
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf "Abortion methods vary depending to some extent on the
preferences of the physician and, of course, on the term of
the pregnancy and the resulting stage of the unborn child’s
development. Between 85 and 90 percent of the approximately
1.3 million abortions performed each year in the United
States take place in the first three months of pregnancy,
which is to say in the first trimester. Planned Parenthood,
320 F. Supp. 2d, at 960, and n. 4; App. in No. 05–1382, pp.
45–48. The most common first-trimester abortion method is
vacuum aspiration (otherwise known as suction curettage) in
which the physician vacuums out the embryonic tissue. Early
in this trimester an alternative is to use medication, such
as mifepristone (commonly known as RU–486), to terminate the
pregnancy. Nat. Abortion Federation, supra, at 464, n. 20.
The Act does not regulate these procedures.
Of the remaining abortions that take place each year,
most occur in the second trimester. The surgical procedure
referred to as “dilation and evacuation” or “D&E” is the
usual abortion method in this trimester. Planned Parenthood,
320 F. Supp. 2d, at 960–961. Although individual techniques
for performing D&E differ, the general steps are the same...
The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls
it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull
even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction
causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be
ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and
out of the woman...
Doctors performing D&E will know that if they do not
deliver a living fetus to an anatomical landmark they will
not face criminal liability... Because a doctor performing a
D&E will not face criminal liability if he or she delivers a
fetus beyond the prohibited point by mistake, the Act cannot
be described as “a trap for those who act in good faith.”
Colautti, supra, at 395 (internal quotation marks
omitted)." (page 26)
|
This doesn't call for a smart strategy, it screams
that we unwaveringly call abortion what it really is and to use zealous,
righteous anger to condemn this evil. And to continue to reach
out to those injured through abortions. It calls for contagious
conviction, seen in our outrage for the act and yet love for the deceived.
In fact suppose, as it seems, that there is a
current slight shift against abortions. Legislative actions
and court battles have not shown any benefit until perhaps this one.
Yet those who choose incremental attacks, have aided and
abetted the abortionists as we try to reason with criminal behavior.
They inadvertently negate the abhorrent murderous actions that
deserve extremely loud outcries from we who see it as a great evil,
exposing this for what it is.
Yet, abortion was recently dealt a full frontal
attack from the South Dakota legislature and governor. Who is
to say that the South Dakota effort was less instrumental than the
incremental approach in flavoring the mindset of the Supreme Court
justices, actually allowing this minor 'victory'. In fact, to
hear some call abortion what it really is with conviction will cause those who lack convictions to recognize
that perhaps they should rethink their positions. The incremental approach lacks this
power and therefore we have over 40 years of evil calling out for
God's judgment on us. Yes, us. The Christians, including
myself, have failed the most vulnerable of our citizens, the
babies/fetuses, and God will hold us accountable for our failure.
This we should fear.
Psalms 94: 20 Can a
corrupt throne be allied with you-- one that brings on misery
by its decrees? 21 They band together against the righteous
and condemn the innocent to death. 22 But the LORD has become
my fortress, and my God the rock in whom I take refuge. 23 He
will repay them for their sins and destroy them for their
wickedness; the LORD our God will destroy them.
| Excerpt from Court Opinion of Gonzales v Carhart, p 13-16
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf "Intact D&E gained public notoriety when, in 1992, Dr.
Martin Haskell gave a presentation describing his method of
performing the operation. Dilation and Extraction 110–111.
In the usual intact D&E the fetus’ head lodges in the
cervix, and dilation is insufficient to allow it to pass.
See, e.g., ibid.; App. in No. 05–380, at 577; App. in No.
05–1382, at 74, 282. Haskell explained the next step as
follows:
“‘At this point, the right-handed
surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the
back of the fetusand “hooks” the shoulders of the fetus
with the index and ring fingers (palm down).
“‘While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and
applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of
the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved
Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully
advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under
his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of
the skull under the tip of his middle finger.“
‘[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of
the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely
entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge
the opening.“
‘The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a
suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull
contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies
traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the
patient.’” H. R. Rep. No. 108–58, p. 3 (2003).
This is an abortion doctor’s clinical description. Here is
another description from a nurse who witnessed the same
method performed on a 26½-week fetus and who testified
before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
“‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed
the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth
canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the
arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head
right inside the uterus. . . .“
‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and
unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the
doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and
the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle 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.’”
Ibid.
Dr. Haskell’s approach is not the only method of killing the
fetus once its head lodges in the cervix, and “the process
has evolved” since his presentation. Planned Parenthood, 320
F. Supp. 2d, at 965. Another doctor, for example, squeezes
the skull after it has been pierced “so that enough brain
tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through.” App. in
No. 05–380, at 41; see also Carhart, supra, at 866–867, 874.
Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their
forceps and crush the fetus’ skull. Carhart, supra, at 858,
881. Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman
until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating
it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush
it, and remove it. Id., at 864, 878; see also Planned
Parenthood, supra, at 965.
Some doctors performing an intact D&E attempt to
remove the fetus without collapsing the skull..."
|
Ginsburg, Stevens, and Breyer. What a lasting
legacy!! You will be known in history epitomizing the bottom
of the moral abyss. You pretend to be wise and you became
merely complicit, murderous fools. How could anyone, even the
worst serial killer try to
justify such a method of killing? Could we even claim we are a civilized
nation when such despicable behavior is debated by our leaders?
We have further unbelievable evidence of just how far we have fallen.
We will now will see more babies
ripped apart in the uterus prior to being removed. Yes, these
human beings
feel their new arms, hands and feet being amputated. The foreign,
cold, sharp steel instruments were new to the baby who, up to this
point, only knew
great comfort, softness and warmth.
Kennedy is now considered the 'swing vote'. The court (7-2) have set another precedence (stare decisis) in
this ruling by reaffirming the "right" of women to have an abortion.
This ruling, in the majority and dissenting opinion, has again erroneously
reconfirmed abortions as constititional. Instead of
incrementally 'winning' as proponents would like to believe, we have
further anchored the evil error with the false god of precedence.
| Court Opinion of Gonzales v Carhart, p
39
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf Cite as:
550 U. S. ____ (2007)
Opinion of the Court
* * *
"Respondents have not demonstrated that the Act, as a facial
matter, is void for vagueness, or that it imposes an undue
burden on a woman’s right to
abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of
a health exception. For these reasons the judgments of the
Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits are
reversed.
It is so ordered. |
To their great credit, Thomas and Scalia added the
following.
Note that Bush's appointees (Roberts and Alito) that were such 'good
conservatives' did not join with Thomas's and Scalia's strong
stand.
They can't say they didn't have that option because
they were in a lower court and must do as the Supreme Court had led,
as they had claimed when being confirmed as their record was being
reviewed (although they were really honest, the Christian 'leaders'
were those who largely made these lying claims). First, they
could rule as they believed right as a lower court judge, even
though it might be overturned on appeal, at least their own ruling
would have been right. Second,
obviously they are not required to worry what a higher court might
say...Except the Highest Court of God's judgment.
| Excerpt from Court Opinion of Gonzales v Carhart,
p 47
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA
joins, concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion because it accurately applies
current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). I
write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s
abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade,
410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the
Constitution. |
In fact, Alito
has failed with abortion rulings
here, an excerpt follows.
| For example, Judge Alito in 2000 joined the majority to
strike down a ban on partial birth abortions in New Jersey.
The case
Planned Parenthood Of Central New Jersey v. John Farmer,
Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey case on appeal
was filed on July 26, 2000. Alito wrote: ...“That opinion
fails to discuss the one authority that dictates the result
in this appeal, namely, the Supreme Court’s decision in
Stenberg v. Carhart, (U.S. June 28, 2000; which struck
down a Nebraska law banning partial-birth abortion)" |
Chief
Justice Roberts appears similar with an excerpted example.
He worships the god of stare decisis according to his Senate
confirmation hearings. The subjective "law" based on
precedence and current whims is more important than God's Law to our
new Chief Justice!
| September 13, 2005 in discussion with Senator Feinstein:
Roberts: "So I don't know what that means when you say
absolute separation. I do know this:
that my faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role in
judging. When it comes to judging, I look to the law books
and always have. I don't look to the Bible or any other
religious source." |
Kennedy has multiple other rulings in his time on
the bench regarding abortion. Obviously, he is not
against abortion. See below.
|
http://www.unitedforlife.org/court_decisions.htm
Planned
Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey,
505 U.S. 833 (1992) By a sharply divided vote of 5-4,
the Court reaffirmed the essential holding of Roe.
JUSTICE O'CONNOR, JUSTICE KENNEDY, and JUSTICE
SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to
Parts I, II, and III, concluding that consideration of the
fundamental constitutional question resolved by Roe v. Wade,
410 U.S. 113 ,
Hodgson v.
Minnesota,
497 U.S. 417 (1990)
Invalidated
a Minnesota law requiring a two-parent notification without
a procedure for judicial bypass of the notice requirement.
However, the Court upheld another provision that required
two-parent notification but did include a procedure for
judicial waiver, as well as a 48-hour waiting period for
minors. JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the
Court with respect to Parts I, II, IV, and VII, concluding
that subdivision 2 of 144.343 violates the Constitution
insofar as it requires two-parent notification. Pp. 436-444,
450-455. JUSTICE STEVENS, joined by JUSTICE O'CONNOR,
concluded in Parts V and VI that:
I strongly disagree with the Court's conclusion that
the State may constitutionally force a minor woman either to
notify both parents (or in some cases only one parent
2 ) and then wait 48 hours before proceeding with an
abortion, or disclose her intimate affairs to a judge and
ask that he grant her permission to have an abortion. See
post, at 497-501 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.). Cf. ante, at
448-449 (opinion of STEVENS, J.) (finding that requiring
minor to wait 48 hours after notifying one parent reasonably
furthers legitimate state interest).
[497 U.S. 417,
464] First, the parental notification and delay
requirements significantly restrict a young woman's right to
reproductive choice. I base my conclusion not on my
intuition about the needs and attitudes of young women, but
on a sizable and impressive collection of empirical data
documenting the effects of parental notification statutes
and of delaying an abortion. Second, the burdensome
restrictions are not narrowly tailored to serve any
compelling state interest. Finally, for the reasons
discussed in Part III, infra, the judicial bypass procedure
does not save the notice and delay requirements.
JUSTICE KENNEDY, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE
WHITE, and JUSTICE SCALIA join, concurring in the judgment
in part and dissenting in part.
"`There can be
little doubt that the State furthers a constitutionally
permissible end by encouraging an unmarried pregnant minor
to seek the help and advice of her parents in making the
very important decision whether or not to bear a child. That
is a grave decision, and a girl of tender years, under
emotional stress, may be ill-equipped to make it without
mature advice and emotional support.'" Bellotti v. Baird (Bellotti
II),
443 U.S. 622, 640 -641 (1979) (opinion of Powell, J.)
(quoting Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth,
428 U.S. 52, 91 (1976) (Stewart, J., concurring)); see
also H.L. v. Matheson,
450 U.S. 398, 409 -411 (1981); id., at 422-423 (STEVENS,
J., concurring in judgment); Danforth, supra, at 94-95
(WHITE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id.,
at 102-103 (STEVENS, J., concurring in
[497 U.S. 417,
481] part and dissenting in part). Today the Court
holds that a statute requiring a minor to notify both
parents that she plans to have an abortion is not a
permissible means of furthering the interest described with
such specificity in Bellotti II. This conclusion, which no
doubt will come as a surprise to most parents, is
incompatible with our constitutional tradition and any
acceptable notion of judicial review of legislative
enactments. I dissent from the portion of the Court's
judgment affirming the Court of Appeals' conclusion that
Minnesota two-parent notice statute is unconstitutional.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services,
492 U.S. 490 (1989)
In this 5-4
decision, the Court upheld provisions of a Missouri statute
that (1) prohibited the use of public facilities or public
personnel to perform abortions; and (2) in pregnancies of 20
weeks or more, requiring ultrasound tests to determine
viability of the unborn child by measuring gestational age,
weight, and lung maturity. REHNQUIST, C.J., announced
the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion for a
unanimous Court with respect to Part II-C, the opinion of
the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, and II-B, in which
WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined, and an
opinion with respect to Parts II-D and III, in which WHITE
and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, J., post, p. 522,
and SCALIA, J., post, p. 532, filed opinions
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. BLACKMUN,
J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in
part, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post,
p. 537. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and
dissenting in part, post, p. 560. [p498]
Multiple other rulings. See here-
http://www.unitedforlife.org/court_decisions.htm |
We should not fall for the distortion that the
recent ruling with Kennedy in the swing spot is an example of any
victory of the incremental approach. Kennedy's ruling in this
particular opinion may reflect a change over time not due to any
incremental victories (there are none in 40 years) along the way but
could represent either a line he refuses to cross in his malleable
conscience or a change in his mindset, quite possibly seasoned with
the commitment of a few non-compromising pro-lifers and the strong
stand taken by South Dakota.
The other point often made is that this is evidence
President Bush's 'conservative' appointments are making a big
difference. Would Sandra Day O'Connor have joined in striking
down this statute? Doubtful. The worthless law met all
the requirements previously laid down by the courts, making it
worthless. She would have joined Kennedy, Rhenquist (or
Roberts), Scalia and Thomas in this setting.
Proponents of the incremental approach believe Gonzales v
Carhart to be an incremental chip in the block, supposedly
emulating William Wilberforce in England defeating slavery after
approximately 22 years of efforts. Wilberforce was fighting to
end slavery and the horrible conditions the slaves were put through
in overcrowded ships. Yet, each of the ship captains desired
the slaves to make it all the way to England. They were not
actively trying to kill the slaves. They lost money when
slaves died in transport. Here, the abortionists make money
when they kill the fetuses/babies, more appropriately a felonious
crime, not negligence.
Additional problems with the Wilberforce analogy:
-
The act of abortion is not just neglect or
subjecting people to deplorable conditions, it is a horrific
killing.
-
If the fetus was an animal, not a human, animal
rights laws would prosecute the abortionist. Even slaves
had the rights of animals.
-
Parliament and the courts would have hung
abortionists for murder in that day and age.
-
Wilberforce made laws in Parliament, ultimately
ending slavery. That is Congress' role today. Only
they have the power to make laws. Not the overreaching
courts. In fact, Congress has passed bill after bill
against the practice of abortion only to find these courts
unconstitutionally overturn such acts.
-
Strategies against the murderous act of abortion
are foolish. We don't try to incrementally decrease a
murderer's ability to kill again. We, (theoretically)
through punishment/rehabilitation, want the murderer to never do
it again.
Again, this ruling is no evidence the incremental approach
works. Remember legalized abortion started in 1973 and we have yet to see
real governmental change with the exception of the thankful changing
of attitudes as the dirty laundry of the abortion industry is aired.
We can only hope Justice Kennedy is awaking from reconsidering what
abortion does to human life. Unwavering commitment is the only solution
to change the hearts and minds of those advocating abortion. Perhaps
exposure of what the 'procedure' is will help
awaken people. Otherwise, we invite God's righteous judgment
upon our nation for the innocent blood spilled, as occurred with
slavery and the Civil War.
We should fear
Him more than terrorists. God is our greatest danger to 'our
way of life'.
Without God's direction in our lives and without His
protection, we see more Drudge Report headlines
on the same day.
On this same day, 4/18/2007,
in the Drudge Report
4 Bombs Kill 157 People in
Baghdad...
NEW SCARE: Virginia Tech building
evacuated, police swarm with guns drawn...
Threats Rattle Schools in 10 States...
REPORT: Killer's parents hospitalized 'with
shock'...
Some Students Forgive Virginia Tech Killer...
'He was my roommate'...
Wrote About Death and Spoke in Whispers...
Gun lobby prepares for battle over rights...
ROANOKE TIMES: DETAILS...
COLLEGIATE
TIMES...
British Pound Breaks Through $2...
Northeast storm leaves remarkable wake, breaks April
snow & rain records...
We are under judgment. Only God can rescue
us. Yet it requires us to first repent.
Copyright © 2007, Dio, Inc.
mailto:diojqa@dutyisours.com
Dio, Inc.
P.O. Box 1811
Pelham, AL 35124
|
