LifeNews.com – The news source for the pro-life community.
by Steven Ertelt | WASHINGTON, DC | LIFENEWS.COM | 6/1/04 9:00 AM
Pro-Life Groups Respond to Partial-Birth Abortion Court Decision
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
June 1, 2004
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Two leading pro-life organizations are disappointed, but not surprised at a ruling handed down by a federal judge today invalidating the ban on partial-birth abortions — the first law prohibiting an abortion procedure since the Roe v. Wade decision.
U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton issued an injunction against the ban in a lawsuit filed by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its California affiliate.
Hamilton found the ban unconstitutional because it "poses an undue burden on a woman’s ability to choose a second trimester abortion; is unconstitutionally vague; and requires a health exception as set forth by the Supreme Court."
Douglas Johnson, of the National Right to Life Committee, said pro-life advocates should keep in mind that two other federal courts are also examining the law. Eventually, the nation’s high court will decide the abortion ban’s fate.
"It is the U.S. Supreme Court that will ultimately decide whether our elected representatives can ban the practice of mostly delivering a living premature infant and then puncturing her skull," NRLC’s legislative director explained. "A one-vote shift on the Supreme Court would allow the ban on partial-birth abortions to be upheld."
Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a pro-life law firm, agreed.
"This is the first stop on a lengthy legal road that ends at the Supreme Court of the United States. We’re confident that the national ban on this horrific procedure ultimately will be declared constitutional," Sekulow said.
Meanwhile, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Casey, who is hearing the New York case, has scheduled closing arguments in the trial for June 22nd.
Sekulow’s firm recently filed an amicus brief on behalf of 25 members of Congress urging Judge Casey to uphold the ban.
Sekulow indicated he felt that Judge Hamilton did not allow the same extensive medical information about partial-birth abortion that Judge Casey did.
"The fact is the federal court in California refused to permit the United States to put forth a full evidentiary record concerning this barbaric procedure and the fact that there is no medical reason for it," Sekulow said.
Judge Casey allowed extensive testimony from medical experts who said unborn children feel intense pain during the abortion procedure and that partial-birth abortions are dangerous for women’s health.
Related web sites:
National Right to Life – http://www.nrlc.org
American Center for Law and Justice – http://www.aclj.org
