Court Proceedings Begin in Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Challenges
by Jody Brown
March 29, 2004
(AgapePress) - In early November, President Bush signed into law the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (PABA), but the ban has been tied up in court ever since. Today, trials on legal challenges to that law begin in federal district courts in New York, Nebraska, and California.The Bush Administration has stated it will "work vigorously to defend the law" that has been challenged by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the National Abortion Federation, a trade group of abortion businesses, and several abortionists. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department is quoted as saying the DOJ will devote "all resources necessary to defend the bipartisan findings of Congress that this violent practice is unnecessary, as well as painful and cruel to the partially born child."
The legislation to prohibit partial-birth abortions passed last October with strong bipartisan votes. The Senate approved the bill 64-34 while the House backed with a 281-142 vote.
Jay Sekulow, whose American Center for Law & Justice is assisting the Justice Department, believes the ban on partial-birth abortions is constitutional and will survive the legal challenges.
"It is our hope that the courts will come to the same conclusion that the American people have reached: that there is no medical necessity for a barbaric practice that takes the life of a child moments before birth," Sekulow told LifeNews.com.
The legal challenges to PABA could eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Doug Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), is hopeful the high court is receptive to protecting babies who are killed literally moments before birth. He notes that the makeup of the Supreme Court has not changed since its 5-4 decision in Carhart v. Stenberg, which found a similar ban in Nebraska unconstitutional.
"We can only hope that by the time this law reaches the Supreme Court, there will be at least a one-vote shift away from that extreme and inhumane position," Johnson says.
NRLC points that Congress, in enacting the PABA, found that most infants killed during partial-birth abortions are alive until the end of the procedure and "will fully experience the pain associated with piercing his or her skull and sucking out his or brain." The groups challenging PABA have attempted to exclude expert testimony about fetal pain from the trials, but at least two of the judges have ruled that it is relevant.
The judges in New York, Nebraska, and California expect the three trials to last from two to four weeks.
The Pro-Life 'Pendulum'
Meanwhile, pro-life advocates continue to praise the U.S. Senate for its passage last week of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), dubbed "Laci and Connor's Law." The measure, which passed on a 254-163 House vote in February and a 61-38 Senate vote on Thursday, is on its way the Oval Office, where President Bush has promised to sign it promptly into law.
The UVVA states what pro-lifers believe is obvious -- in any violent attack against a pregnant woman, there are two victims: the mother and the unborn child. Twenty-eight states currently have similar laws on the books, but there is no federal law. The concept behind the legislation, says Gary Bauer, is not a controversial one.
Bauer, the president of the Campaign for Working Families, points out that polls show that as much as 80 percent of the American population believes the mother and the unborn baby should be considered as two separate victims in the commission of crimes. But "pro-abortion radicals" in the Senate, as he calls them, did not give up without a fight, noting that 49 senators voted in favor of an amendment sponsored by Democrat Barbara Boxer of California. Boxer's amendment offered a "single victim" substitute concept and would have removed every reference to the unborn baby.
"The fact that 49 senators would vote for such an amendment, against the opinion of 80 percent of the American public, demonstrates the extremism of the pro-abortion crowd and the shallowness of their mantra, 'Every child a wanted child,'" Bauer says. "They don't even believe that!"
Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention says with the passage of UVVA in the Senate -- combined with President Bush's signature on legislation such as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in recent months -- "the moral pendulum seems to have swung over to the pro-life side."
"This is a significant step forward in reasserting the legal rights of human persons to the unborn," Land says in reference to UVVA. "It is yet one more indication that we are slowly but surely winning the battle for the hearts and minds of the American public when it comes to the personhood of unborn human beings."
Pro-lifers, Land says, should draw inspiration from UVVA's passage and strengthen their resolve to move forward in their defense for the unborn.
But the largest pro-life educational group in the United States is being tentative in its praise. American Life League says while it is encouraged that 61 senators have gone on the record to guarantee the rights of the preborn, UVVA "perpetuates the lie" that the rights of some unborn children are worth defending and other are not.
A Language Problem
"This law has a clearly stated exemption for abortions, which is why American Life League cannot approve of the language in this bill," says ALL's Joseph Giganti. "This is also why we will continue to educate the American people and our legislators to the simple truth that all preborn babies' civil right to life must be defended from acts of murder, no matter what the method -- especially if the child is killed by abortion."
The legislation specifically excludes prosecution of legally performed abortions. The provisions simply make it a separate crime to injure or kill an unborn child during the commission of any of 68 federal crimes, such as assaults on federal property, drug-related shootings, stalking or kidnapping across state lines, and terrorist attacks.
