Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

[Ebowed]

By Pastor David Whitney

Many Americans have successfully been deceived into believing Bush is pro-life. The evidence is against that fact. I have the distinct impression that he was without any real interest in the goals of the movement to end abortion.

What is that evidence? Here it is. We've been told that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban signed by Bush proves that he is pro-life. That is a flat out lie. Actually it proves the opposite.

This bill will not save the life of one unborn child. On the contrary, it actually endangers the unborn child in two ways:

First it will not save the life of one unborn child because it merely instructs the contract killer whom the mother has hired as to precisely when he must kill that child to avoid prosecution. Do you think that this will stop even one abortion? Who will stand watch in those killing centers to be sure these partial birth murders are prosecuted? Will a District Attorney now be present at each killing to insure that the murder is conducted at just the right moment? This Partial Birth Abortion Ban is virtually unenforceable. It will not save even one child from murder.

Second, this is the most wicked piece of legislation in the history of our land because it codifies and actually legalizes all forms of abortion except Partial Birth Abortion. We need to remember that in our system of government, the Supreme Court never makes law. People say Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. It did not. It was the courts opinion in that one case, and it governed that one case alone. States, who chose to, could have continued to prosecute abortionists for murder. The law had not changed. Abortion was still murder. Two classes of politicians, those who don't understand our form of government, and those who have chosen to subvert our form of government, decided to treat that Supreme Court opinion (and that's what it is) as law. The very first words of the Constitution, following the Preamble are, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress ...."

Only the legislative branch makes law. Any law they make must be signed into law by the President. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban for the first time in U.S. history codified abortion as the law of the land. It makes abortion legal for the first time ever in America. So Bush signed the first law to legalize abortion in America. Do you call that a pro-life Presidential candidate? Don't take my word for it. Check out the facts for yourself.

http://www.covenantnews.com/peroutka041021.htm

[Ebowed]

Someone on Peroutka's site now is saying if the Parental Notification Vote in California passes, it would say abortion is ok with a parents consent.

That's an interesting argument.  Ultimately, the more restrictions we as a pro-life movement are able to get passed, the harder it could theoretically become to get rid of abortion altogether.

[Ebowed]

Here's a much better article on the ban:

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2003

Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion.  Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age.  The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty.  As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure.  It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.

Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization.  Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society.  There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation.  Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.

The best solution, of course, is not now available to us.  That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.  Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.

Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well.  Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

For example, 14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide...” The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community?  By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not.

Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion.  This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce.  The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope.  H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.

H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a “distinction” made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is.  By depending upon this illogical “distinction,” I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.

Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it.  I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html

I'm disappointed that he questioned its constitutionality and then voted in favor of it... but he has some valid points, more reasonable than the ones in the Peroutka article imo.