Finally! The Partial-Birth Abortion Stands![1]

In a stunning victory, for the cause of life, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the national ban on partial-birth abortion which outlaws the notorious procedure. The American Center for Law and Justice filed amicus briefs[2] in both cases before the Supreme Court including one on behalf of some 80 members of Congress and more than 320,000 Americans. (The 5-4 ruling came in the consolidated cases of Gonzales v. Carhart [#05380] and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood [#05-1382].)

"This is a monumental victory for the preservation of human life, said Jay Allen Seculow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. "By rejecting the lawsuits challenging the national ban, the high court demonstrated that this gruesome procedure has no place in the medical community. We're delighted and encouraged that a majority of the high court determined that it was time to bring an end to what only can be described as infanticide. This decision represents an important shift
in the ongoing battle to protect human life and represents a very significant pro-life victory in the abortion debate."

Indeed, the decision reflects a new pro-life sentiment. The majority concluded that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act "expresses respect for the dignity of human life." Backing the actions of Congress, the high court said the "government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life."

Furthermore, the Supreme Court chose to express itself in a new and different way, for the first time banning a specific abortion procedure. The Justices clearly considered and extensively cited in the majority opinion - factual medical evidence that put this procedure into the proper prospective, exposing the grisly nature of the procedure itself. There was a noticeable shift in the language used to talk about the abortion issue.

Partial-birth abortion is so repulsive and vile that a majority of the Court correctly concluded what most Americans already believe that the taking of the life of a fully developed child by sucking out the child's brains from the skull is reprehensible and should be forbidden.

Also, in barring the use of partial-birth abortion, the majority focused on the medical profession itself.

"There can be no doubt the government has an interest in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession," Justice Kennedy wrote. "It was reasonable for Congress to think that partial-birth abortion . . . undermines the public's perception of the appropriate role of a physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process during which life is brought into this world."

The opinion further stated: "Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision . . . [It] seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained . . . Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow."

The high court also acknowledged that the Act likely will result in fewer abortions. "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. . ."

The majority also pushed back on the abortion lobby's strategy of using hypothetical worst-case scenarios to drive constitutional challenges. In this ruling, the Justices insisted on a commonsense approach to the possibility of someone suffering adverse consequences as a result of the partial-birth abortion ban. The abortion industry will no longer be free to leverage extreme or hard cases into across-the-board legal victories. This case also results in abortionists being subject to the same rules that apply to other physicians.

Bottom line: the Supreme Court decision banning the barbaric child-killing procedure known as partial-birth abortion represents a monumental victory in the pro-life arena.

1. Victory Report, July 2007, American Center for Law and Justice, Box 90555, Washington, DC 20090-0555
2. Definition: http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/amicus.htm