Stop the Tyrants Part II

Good-Bye to Decency

§B   Only the Abortionist's Point of View Matters

The Stenberg majority felt the need to bolster its health-exemption decree (an expansion of the judiciary's already unethical and immoral abortion jurisprudence) with some medical evidence. Nebraska had claimed that a ban on partial-birth abortion requires no health exemption at all. Any sensible person can see why this is so: partial-birth abortion/infanticide has nothing to do with health care. In a column titled "9-Headed Caesar," Linda Bowles brilliantly demonstrated this:

There is a critical moment of truth that occurs in every partial-birth abortion that reveals exactly what is happening and why. That moment occurs when the abortionist has brought the baby down the birth canal feet first and delivered all of the child except the head.
At this moment of truth, if the goal of the procedure is to save the mother from damage being done to her by the unborn baby, then why not save her by completing the birth? With full delivery, all danger to the mother from the baby is gone. But that is not what happens. At that moment of truth, the abortionist drives scissors into the base of the skull, inserts a tube, and sucks out the baby's brains.
Transparently, the motivation is not to protect a mother. The motivation is to kill a baby.

But this is not how Justice Breyer and his cohorts choose to see things. When confronted with Nebraska's claim that its ban on partial-birth abortion/infanticide created no health risk for women seeking abortions, Mr. Breyer simply said, "The problem for Nebraska is that [Dr. Carhart and his supporters] strongly contested this factual question in the trial court... and the findings and evidence support Dr. Carhart."

What Mr. Breyer should have said, if he wished to be honest, is: 'The problem for Nebraska is that this Court is only interested in how abortionists view different abortion procedures. We don't give a damn how non-abortionists see things.' Justice Kennedy bluntly said as much in his dissent: "The majority views [abortion procedures] from the perspective of the abortionist, rather than from the perspective of a society shocked when confronted with a new method of ending human life." [Kennedy dissent, Page 2]

As mentioned in Chapter 3, Integrity Down the Drain, the American Medical Association considers partial-birth abortion to be a dangerous and unethical procedure. But abortionists like Leroy Carhart do not consider any abortion procedure to be unethical. And the danger they worry about most is not an injured patient, but rather a live-born baby.

In siding with Dr. Carhart, the majority told the States that no government in the United States can regulate abortion procedures unless it adopts the point of view of the abortionists who want to use these procedures! Such abortionists -- physicians who consider a fully formed baby to be nothing more than "fetal tissue" -- are merely hired assassins masquerading as health care providers. Yet the five members of the Stenberg majority prefer the point of view of these abortionists over all other points of view. There can be no other explanation for their dismissal of all medical testimony that oppossed partial-birth abortion.

The five judges in the Stenberg majority care nothing for the concerns of people who are appalled by the partial-birth abortion/infanticide. They consider as worthless the opinions of anyone, medical professional and layman alike, who has enough sensitivity to the intrinsic value of a human life to oppose this barbarism. Is that what you would call respecting human life?

§C   Pain and Suffering Don't Count!

Doctor Jean A. Wright, who is an expert in pediatrics and anesthesia, told the House Judiciary Commitee of the clear evidence that unborn children of the age to be candidates for the partial-birth abortion procedure can feel pain. We have already seen such a baby reacting to the perforation of his skull, as witnessed by Brenda Pratt Shafer. In spite of these plain truths , the majority's members have steadfastly insisted on the constitutional propriety of Roe v. Wade's viability standard. As Justice Breyer wrote in plain English, "The State's interest in regulating abortion pre-viablility is considerably weaker than postviablility." [Majority Opinion, Page 11] In her separate opinion, Jusitice O'Connor agreed, saying that "As we held in Casey, prior to viability the woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy."In a display of their excellence as judges, Justices Breyer and O'Connor give no reason for the constitutional importance of fetal 'viability' outside the uterus. (A fetus is perfectly 'viable' when left in the womb to complete gestation.) These judges are perfectly willing to further the crime against humanity started by the Roe Court. If that isn't depraved indifference to human life, then there is no such thing!

But these two and their fellows in the Stenberg majority don't stop there. They demand the government respect some right to "abortion" even after the baby is sufficiently developed to survive outside the mother's body! (Remember that the terms "abortion" and "miscarriage" mean the loss of the unborn child before he can survive outside the womb.) Once again, I quote Mr. Breyer's opinion verbatim: "the law requires a health exception in order to validate even a postviablility abortion regulation". Similarly, O'Connor wrote that "After the fetus has become viable, States may substantially regulate or even proscribe abortion, but any such regulation or proscription must contain an exception for instances 'where it is necessary ... for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.' "Just like Harry Blackmun writing for the Roe Court, neither Breyer nor O'Connor gives any explanation for what the word "abortion" means in a post-viability context.

See the Chapter 4 Table of Contents.

The Stop the Tyrants Project, page 21: Chapter 4 (Sections B - C)
Page content and layout copyright © May 2001 by David A. Calvani