The AP is reporting on possibly the biggest pro-life victory in the 34 years since abortion-on-demand was imposed on our nation:

The 5-4 ruling [by the U.S. Supreme Court] said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

The opponents of the act “have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision pitted the court’s conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush’s two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how—not whether—to perform an abortion.

A good, quick analysis by National Review’s Ed Whelan:

On initial read, this opinion strikes me as a significant victory.  In particular, it appears that the Court is disinclined to continue to have special ad hoc rules that uniquely favor those who challenge abortion regulations.

It’s also a significant victory for FIC members, many of whom helped convince Sen. Lieberman not to filibuster Justice Alito:

Following the announcements by Senators Dodd and Lieberman that they would vote against confirming Justice Alito, FIC launched a campaign to persuade Senator Lieberman to vote against a filibuster. While we are disappointed by his vote against Justice Alito’s confirmation, Sen. Lieberman did at least vote against the filibuster.

It is because of the phone calls and e-mails from you, our members, that Sen. Lieberman, who has otherwise caved into pressure from the extreme Left, at least voted to allow Justice Alito a fair up-or-down vote! If the filibuster had been successful, Justice Alito’s confirmation might not have happened. FIC was the only grassroots pro-family organization in Connecticut fighting to prevent Sen. Lieberman from supporting the filibuster!

We also acknowledge with gratitude that our members answered the request we made when the Court first decided to hear this case–and that a still-higher Judge smiled upon their efforts:

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could lead to a ruling that it is constitutionally permissible to ban partial-birth abortion. This is welcome news for those working and praying for a culture of life. FIC members, having helped secure both our Senators’ support for Chief Justice Roberts and Senator Lieberman’s opposition to a filibuster of Justice Alito, have much to be thankful for. Today’s news represents the first fruits of our efforts to reclaim the Supreme Court…We call upon all of our members to pray for the Supreme Court to make the right decision and allow the states to protect those innocent young lives threatened by the gruesome procedure of partial-birth abortion.

I had more to say about that gruesome procedure–and those local activists who are proud to defend it–here.

Our thanks again to all of you whose calls and e-mails helped secure the support of both our U.S. Senators for the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts and Sen. Lieberman’s opposition to the filibuster of Justice Alito. Your prayers, too, were especially important. You understood how crucial our courts are in the battle to reclaim our culture for faith, family and freedom. Today’s victory is also yours.

11 Responses to “Breaking…Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Partial-Birth Abortion”

  1. on 18 Apr 2007 at 10:20 amPaul

    Thank The Lord ! Really, not just a cliche. This procedure is nothing short of murder. this good news really made my day !

  2. on 18 Apr 2007 at 10:43 amModernFemme

    Don’t forget about the women who have suffered terribly from this form of abortion. It’s cruel and now hopefully, unusual.

  3. on 18 Apr 2007 at 11:12 amSteve

    Wow. Finally, a chink in the armor of the culture of death. I can’t wait to see how far this might go. Great news.

  4. on 18 Apr 2007 at 5:25 pmmatt

    Interesting that you guys are for this crazy bill being upheld, even though your entire argument against gay marriage is that the government should ensure that both biological parents raise a child. Intact D&E is only ever used when the mother would die or be severely injured by delivering.

  5. on 18 Apr 2007 at 5:26 pmmatt

    And of course, there’s no exception for the life of the mother.

  6. on 18 Apr 2007 at 7:31 pmDave

    I don’t know where Matt gets his misinformation, but there most definitely is an exception for the life of the mother. 18 USC Sec. 1531 clearly states:

    This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

    However, the procedure was most definitely used in cases where the mother’s life was not at risk. Let me just recap from Douglas Johnson’s letter to the editors of the Wall Street Journal:

    Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, told The New York Times that “in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus” (Feb. 26, 1997). Mr. Fitzsimmons elsewhere estimated that 4,000-5,000 abortions annually are performed by the partial birth method.

    Thankfully this practice will finally be ended. At least that’s one small victory in fighting back the “culture of death”.

  7. on 18 Apr 2007 at 8:07 pmChrisee

    I have always been of the opinion that even pithing a frog for dissection in high school was pretty disgusting. It is amazing how anesthetized our minds can get to an absolutely inhuman level of torture to an innocent living child. Maybe those high school science experiments led us to believe that the frog and the child did not feel anything when a huge instrument is jammed up through their spines into their skulls.
    This is not a proceedure, it is a holocost.

    I have worked in a pediatric ICU and watched a child die from child abuse. The devastation to everyone, first thechild, the family, the whole medical community treating the child and the community surrounding the child is unimaginable and remains forever. How can we think that the quiet butchery of a child in the moment of being born is any less devastating than the effects of a newborn being tossed into a dumpster, or a 2 month old being beaten to death by a family member in a fit of rage. Its just quieter.

    I am so greatful that one step has been taken forward to protect innocent human life.

  8. on 18 Apr 2007 at 10:16 pmTricia


    You should recheck ref. your last statement. I believe there is an “exception for the life of the mother.” There is just “no exception for the ‘health’ of the mother.”

  9. on 19 Apr 2007 at 3:36 pmchele

    There is just “no exception for the ‘health’ of the mother.”

    Because, you know, every child deserves a mommy, even if she’s on a ventilator.

  10. on 19 Apr 2007 at 6:01 pmPaul

    Chele, Smile your mother chose to have you. Unlike the poor babies that were murdered by having their brains sucked out!
    The concept of the mothers “health” is just a sham by the pro abortion people so they can include mental distress etc…a poor excuse for murdering an innocent child. These are not theorectical issues here but real children who had their lives snuffed out. IMHO (in my humble opinion) abortion is worse then the Nazi holocost, The Japanese holocost against the Chinese and Koreans put together. To put abortion in perspective , it would be like murdering every person in Spain.
    Nice. Thank the Lord that the Supreme Court voted to stop this barbaric procedure. Some people have a lot of blood on their hands.

  11. on 20 Apr 2007 at 12:26 pmSteve

    Interesting. Thomas went out of his way “to reiterate [his] view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence has no basis in the Constitution.” Scalia concurred, but Alito and Roberts were mum.

    Perhaps it’s just wishful thinking on my part, but it brings this (so far so good) Ponnuru prediction to mind…

Leave a Reply