Thursday January 5, 2006
Partial-Birth Abortion Returns to the U.S. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, January 5, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Friday, January 6, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to decide whether to review a lower-court ruling that has blocked enforcement of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, a bill signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 5, 2003. The Court may announce its decision on whether to accept the case on January 6, or on Monday, January 9.
In 2000, five justices of the Supreme Court, including soon-to-retire Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, ruled that the abortion right originally created in Roe v. Wade allows an abortionist to perform a partial-birth abortion any time he sees a 'health' benefit, even if the woman and her unborn baby are entirely healthy. (Stenberg v. Carhart, June 28, 2000). This ruling struck down the ban on partial-birth abortion that had been enacted by Nebraska, and rendered unenforceable the similar bans that more than half the states had enacted.
Nevertheless, in 2003 Congress approved and President Bush signed a national law, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. When he signed the ban, the President called partial-birth abortion "a terrible form of violence [that] has been directed against children who are inches from birth."
The federal law bans "partial-birth abortion," a legal term of art, defined in the law itself as any abortion in which the baby is delivered "past the [baby's] navel . . . outside the body of the mother," OR "in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother," BEFORE being killed. The complete official text of the law, in a searchable format, is here: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/partial_birth_abortion_Ban_act_final_language.h...
The law would allow the method if it was ever necessary to save a mother's life.
The federal law has faced legal challenges in three different federal circuits, and its enforcement has been blocked by court orders. Federal district courts in all three circuits ruled that the federal law violated the 2000 Supreme Court ruling. In one of these cases, Gonzales v. Carhart, that adverse judgment was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Bush Administration has asked the Supreme Court to review the Eighth Circuit ruling, and it is that "cert petition" on which the Court will conference on January 6.
"In 2000, five justices of the Supreme Court in effect ruled that Roe v. Wade guarantees the right to perform partial-birth abortions at will," said National Right to Life Committee Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "Unless the Court accepts this new case and abandons the extreme position it took in 2000, partly born premature infants will continue to die by having their skulls punctured with seven-inch scissors."
Meanwhile, the other two legal challenges to the federal law remain under review by the U.S. courts of appeals for the Second Circuit and Ninth Circuit. In addition, the Commonwealth of Virginia has filed a request for the Supreme Court to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, holding that a similar state law, banning "partial birth infanticide," contradicts the 2000 Supreme Court decision. (Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Hicks)
Latest Headlines
- Cardinal Rigali: You Can't Claim to be "Reducing Abortions" but Publicly Funding them in D.C.

- General Electric to Use Embryonic Stem Cells for Testing, Phase out Lab Rats

- Ohio Supreme Court Allows Planned Parenthood to Conceal Abortion Records in Sexual Abuse Case

- LifeSiteNews Canada Day and Independence Day Message. Taking a few days off. LSN returns Monday July 6

- Heroically Pro-Life Brazilian Archbishop's Resignation Accepted Under Cloud of Vatican Newspaper Misrepresentation

- Pro-Life Groups Announce New Colorado Personhood Initiative

- Judge Puts Kibosh on DC Gay "Marriage" Referendum

- Al Franken Win Hands Supermajority to Senate Democrats

- Group Funded by Canadian Bishops' D&P Joins with Others to Denounce the "Natural Family" and "Family Rights"

- Financially Troubled Planned Parenthood of El Paso Closes Doors

- Abortion Linked to Subsequent Pre-Term Births, New Research Again Confirms

- New Orleans Homosexual Couple Ask Fed. Court to Overturn Marriage Amendment

- Slim Hope Of New Ontario Progressive Conservative Party Leader Promoting Pro-Life, Pro-Family Issues

- Pope Accepts Resignation of Bishop Caught Involved in Homosexual Encounters

- Young Children Removed from UK Schools for "Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour"

- Northern Ireland Politician Cleared of Wrongdoing after Reiterating Christian Teaching on Homosexual Acts

- UK Conservative Leader Speaks at Gay Pride Fundraiser

- More Letters to the Editor on Canadian Catholic Development and Peace Scandal (July 1)

- Letters to the Editor - Readers Respond to Development and Peace Scandal

- Watch This Dramatic New Video on Catholic Bishops Conference Funding of Pro-Abortion Groups

Most Read this Week
- Homosexual Duke U. Director Charged with Offering Adopted 5-Year-Old for Sex
- Famed Fr. Corapi Calls Canadian Bishops' Dissent from Humanae Vitae "Catastrophic"
- Pope: It is a Childish Faith to Oppose the Church Teaching on Life and Family
- Heroically Pro-Life Brazilian Archbishop's Resignation Accepted Under Cloud of Vatican Newspaper Misrepresentation
- LifeSiteNews Detailed Response to Canadian Bishops' Whitewash Report on Development and Peace
- General Electric to Use Embryonic Stem Cells for Testing, Phase Out Lab Rats
- Young Children Removed from UK Schools for "Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour"
- Is Pro-Choice the New Pro-Life?
- Swedish Parents Won't Tell if Child is Boy or Girl as Gender Experiment
- Cardinal Rigali: You Can't Claim to be "Reducing Abortions" but Publicly Funding them in D.C.
MORE NEWS:
LifeSiteNews.com Home Page
Last 10 Days
Archives
Special Reports
Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.







Back to Top