Third Party & Independents Archives

Judicial Assault on the Unborn Continues

In a display of the radical and unbounded abortion-rights jurisprudence of our federal judiciary, a federal judge ruled that the partial birth abortion ban supported by most Republicans and most Democrats is unconstitutional. The ruling was based on the idea that partial birth abortion can sometimes be beneficial to the health of the mother, but the judge made the radical nature of the ruling very clear:

“this gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in which any women could potentially benefit from it” (emphasis added)

The impact of this ruling is that even though by every medical standard the unborn child killed by these brutal procedures has the development of many premature newborn children, the Congress, supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people, has no right to ban the killing of these unborn children. It strains the credulity of even the most agile mind to think that the fourteenth amendment or any other clause of the constitution requires or even hints at such a result (not that any sort of consistent, historical or logical application of the constitution matters to pro-abortion advocates).

Finally, since the health of the mother is the only concern that matters in the least, there is an even safer procedure that mothers who are carrying unwanted late-term children can follow. Instead of performing a partial birth abortion, the doctor can simply remove the child from the mother and then allow the newborn baby to die (or actively kill the newborn). If the constitution protects the right of the mother to kill her 8 month unborn child by having the child’s skull sucked in with a vacuum tube, why doesn’t it protect her right to force labor and then end the child’s life in a less brutal manner? The logic is inescapable and monstrous.

Posted by Misha Tseytlin at August 28, 2004 3:25 PM