Ban on 'Barbaric' Act Unconstitutional, Judge Says
by Fred Jackson and Jody Brown
August 27, 2004
(AgapePress) - Advocates of abortion are calling it a "sensible" ruling, but defenders of unborn babies are reacting strongly to Thursday's court ruling by a federal judge in New York that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (PABA) of 2003 is unconstitutional. Those pro-life advocates are blasting the judge's rationale for his decision -- a decision in which even the judge himself described the partial-birth abortion procedure as a "barbaric" act.Yesterday's ruling from U.S. District Judge Richard Casey was not unexpected. Implementation of the PABA was already on hold, thanks to an earlier decision by a judge in California. Still, pro-lifers reacted to the decision with criticism of Casey's reason for his ruling: the ban, he noted, does not contain an exception for instances in which the health of the mother is threatened. Yet in the same ruling, Casey indicated his reluctance as he did, saying the procedure causes pain to the unborn child and is "gruesome, brutal, barbaric, and uncivilized."
Gary Bauer of American Values takes issue with Judge Casey. Calling the ruling "another unfortunate example of how badly our system of checks and balances has been skewed against the people," Bauer says there is one major problem with the basis of this ruling. "Congress, after hearing from dozens of medical experts [during the PABA hearings], could find no health reason that required a partial-birth abortion," he points out.
Troy Newman of Operation Rescue West concurs. He says not only did the majority of the members of Congress vote for the ban and the president sign it into law, but an "overwhelming percentage" of Americans oppose partial-birth abortion. "Now comes Judge Casey saying that he knows better than the collective common sense of the American people, the Congress of the United States, and the president," Newman states. "This is just another example of judicial tyranny thwarting the will of the people to govern themselves."
Bauer echoes that sentiment, saying there is "something grossly wrong with our 'representative democracy' when one un-elected, unaccountable judge can overturn the will of the other two elected branches of government."
Setting aside that particular aspect of the ruling, American Life League -- which never supported the PABA because it felt the ban would not prevent even one abortion -- says there is no time that the procedure should be performed for the life of the mother. "The fact is," says ALL president Judie Brown, "no abortion is ever medically necessary -- and courageous physicians have put their professional credibility on the line to make that point."
Mat Staver | |
But in the midst of the pro-life outcry, one pro-life legal group says it sees an opportunity coming out of Judge Casey's ruling. Mat Staver, president and general counsel for Liberty Counsel, notes Casey admitted that partial-birth abortion causes pain to the unborn child -- yet declared the law does not meet the requirement of a "health of the mother" exception clause.Staver contends this means the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have to come to grips with the fact that partial-birth abortion is nothing less than infanticide -- and that claims that the procedure is needed to protect the life and health of the mother are unfounded.
"For the Supreme Court to strike down a law banning partial-birth abortion would be like looking Hitler in the face and condoning the most grotesque, inhumane, barbarism imaginable -- without even blinking," the attorney says.
It is likely the ban on partial-birth abortions could end up before the high court. An earlier California ruling on the ban found the law unconstitutional and has already been appealed by the U.S. Department of Justice.
