News

ASHINGTON, June 29 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Radical abortion supporters rejoiced at the US Supreme Court’s ruling in favour of partial-birth abortion, a ruling which also ordered federal appeals courts to take a new look at laws from Illinois and Wisconsin banning the infanticidal procedure. American citizens across the country, however, are reacting with outrage.

The ruling may well have crossed a line in American politics, igniting intense criticism of the court, with the possibility of spurring actions for change to new heights. It is also likely to fuel the momentum in Canada of a growing movement demanding a halt to destructive judicial activism by the Canadian Supreme Court. The following quotes exemplify the growing fury in the U.S. :

Family Research Council’s (FRC) Executive Vice President Chuck Donovan: “The Supreme Court’s odious partial-birth abortion ruling is the cruelest, most unjust ruling in American history. … The court ruled today that the American people, acting through their elected lawmakers, cannot stop an abortionist from puncturing the skull and sucking out the brains of a living, feeling infant. …  This odious ruling must not stand. We call upon faithful Americans, upon people of goodwill everywhere, to peaceably protest this odious partial-birth abortion ruling. We call upon our elected officials to denounce this ruling. We call upon candidates for public office – at every level – to tell us what they will do now to end partial-birth abortion in America.”

David Stevens, MD, Executive Director of the Christian Medical Association:  “This decision will go down in history alongside the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, when the Court decided that Afro-Americans were not persons but pieces of property. Once again, an autocratic court has misinterpreted the constitution by removing the inalienable right to life of a baby just moments   away from birth. … The Court’s decision will allow an abortionist to cut into the cranium of a developing baby, inflict a horrific level of pain, and then suction out its brain. If someone treated a dog in this inhumane way we would lock them up and throw away the key.” 

Tom DeLay (R-TX), the House Majority Whip:  “More than anything, this decision demonstrates the urgent need to put a President in the White House who will insist on appointing members of the Judiciary who do not view the Constitution as a launch pad for contrived legal theories. “The next President will likely be required to make several Supreme Court appointments. Those nominees will either push the Court back to the common sense values shared by the vast majority of citizens who oppose partial birth abortions or accelerate the Court’s alarming acceptance of the extreme judicial activism that is undermining American democracy. This decision is as   wrong and misguided as the act of partial birth abortion itself.”

Joseph Scheidler, Exec. Director Chicago based Pro-Life Action League: “If Americans have no respect for the Supreme Court, the Court has only itself to blame. … Today’s decision confirms my suspicion that the very concept of a Supreme Court was a mistake from the beginning.” 

Judie Brown, president of American Life League:  “Ten, fifteen or twenty years from now, today’s Supreme Court decision will be cited to justify the selective termination of infants, toddlers, grandparents and the disabled.” 

(with files from Lektrik.com)

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.