Top Stories of 2004: Pro-Lifers React After Disappointing California PABA Ruling
by Bill Fancher and Chad Groening
December 23, 2004
(AgapePress) - A spokesman for the American Life League says the callous testimony of some abortionists may have incensed a federal judge in a case filed to block the enforcement of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, and pro-life forces are hoping this will improve the chances of a favorable ruling for life.Earlier this week, pro-life supporters were dealt a blow in a California case when U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood in its challenge to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act signed by President Bush last year. Two other challenges to that law have been heard in Nebraska and New York, but the rulings have yet to be made in those cases.
Joe Giganti of the American Life League is optimistic about the New York case being heard by U.S. District Judge Richard Casey. "His own personal experience, mixed with the testimony that he's heard from countless abortionists about their callousness to the pain and the suffering of these children has really brought him to a mindset where he wants to get to the true medical facts and to know what's best for all Americans," the anti-abortion activist says.
"It is interesting to note that the judge in the New York case has a handicap -- he's blind," Giganti says. That's why it is likely that one abortionist may have particularly irritated Casey by testifying that the partial birth abortion procedure is often chosen to prevent the birth of children with handicaps.
"I guess the abortionist wasn't thinking things through when he answered those questions," the pro-life advocate says, "because it certainly illuminated for that judge how lucky he was to be there that day."
Casey was not known as a pro-life judge prior to the case, ALL's spokesman notes, but he believes the justice will give the pro-life side a fair shot, especially after hearing the callousness of so many abortionist witnesses. Giganti feels their testimony was not very helpful to the pro-abortion cause.
Meanwhile, the decision by Judge Hamilton in California to strike down the law banning partial birth abortion has pro-life conservatives once again calling for judicial reform. Hamilton, a Clinton appointee, ruled that the ban was unconstitutional because it restricts a woman's choice to abort her child. In her decision, the judge said any pain felt by the unborn child in the abortion process is "irrelevant."
Responding to that, Tony Nassif of the Cedars Cultural and Educational Foundation says, "By her own admission that there is pain, she's admitting that they're dealing with a human being, because only a human being in the womb can feel pain. And when you discard [that fact], and harden your heart and soul with such callousness, the callousness pervades into other areas of human existence."
If a single judicial activist can negate the entire democratic process like this, Nassif warns, there is one question left to ask -- a question loaded with frightening implications. "Who's next?" he asks. "Will it be the elderly, the seniors. Will it be the infirm? Will it be the children that have incurable illness -- will they be required to die and get out of the way? Who's next?"
Conservative critics are calling Judge Hamilton a black-robed dictator who, by her ruling, has usurped the power of the people and the democratic process in order to legislate conformity to her personal agenda.
