#48

U.S. SUPREME COURT`S WAR ON UNBORN BABIES

Twenty-seven years and over 40 million deaths ago the U.S. Supreme Court declared war on unborn babies. This war has intensified each year in its ferociousness. If there is anything that totally confirms the current court`s legal antipathy toward the unborn, it uncontestedly is its infamous June 28, 2000, decision striking down as unconstitutional state laws banning the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion - a renegade surgery, if performed on puppies or kittens without anaesthesia, perpetrators would be scorned as psychotic criminals.

Just how far has the pro-abortion mental disease reached into the chambers of the mighty? Unbelievably far, as a superficial gleaning from the Supreme Court`s majority decision and rationalizations in the Stenberg vs. Carhart case indicates. The Court was almost unanimous in ruling that it is unconstitutional to protect human beings in the process of being born. The majority of Justices adamantly oppose a ban on a procedure that involves the partial, feet-first extraction of the unborn child, after which the barely visible skull is punctured with scissors and its contents are drained before it is collapsed, killing the child. They have in effect expanded the right to kill children at every stage including childbirth - showing they will support any form of abortion, no matter how barbarous.

Indeed, one cannot read the separate contributions of all the Justices on this shameful abdication of judicial responsibility and plain common sense without being deeply troubled. Especially nauseating is the majority opinion delivered by Justice Breyer. Following are some of the passages I`ve singled out to illustrate the horrendous mentality prevailing at the highest judicial level in the U.S. and, to an almost equal degree, in Canada also; they reveal a callousness for innocent and defenseless victims of torture unprecedented in human history. Keep in mind these assertions devoid of any human compassion are those of men and women whose only mandate and motto is "Equal justice to all under the law:"

* "Dilation & Extraction (D&E) is similar to vacuum aspiration except that the cervix must be dilated more widely because surgical instruments are used to remove larger pieces of tissue" [read: arms, torsos, legs, etc.].

* "Because the fetus is larger at this stage of gestation [particularly the head], and because bones are more rigid, dismemberment or other destructive procedures are more likely to be required than at earlier gestational ages to remove fetal and placental tissue."

* "Some physicians use intrafetal potassium chloride or digoxin to induce fetal demise prior to a late D&E (after 20 weeks), to facilitate evacuation. [This consists of a lethal injection in the heart of a fully formed baby]"

* "D&E involves (1) dilation of the cervix; (2) removal of at least some fetal tissue using nonvacuum instruments; and (3) (after the 15th week) the potential need for instrumental disarticulation or dismemberment of the fetus or the collapse of fetal parts to facilitate evacuation from the uterus."

* When instrumental disarticulation incident to D&E is necessary, it typically occurs as the doctor pulls a portion of the fetus through the cervix."

* "If the fetus presents head first, the doctor collapses the skull; and the doctor then extracts the entire fetus through the cervix. If the fetus presents feet first (a breech presentation), the doctor pulls the fetal body through the cervix, collapses the skull, and extracts the fetus through the cervix."

* "(The procedure under consideration) reduces the incidence of a 'free floating' fetal head that can be difficult for a physician to grasp and remove and can thus cause maternal injury." 

* "Witnesses to the procedure relate that the fingers and feet of the fetus are moving prior to the piercing of the skull; when the scissors are inserted in the back of the head, the fetus' body, wholly outside the woman's body and alive, reacts as though startled and goes limp."

* "Leading proponents of the procedure acknowledge that the (partial-birth abortion) method has 'disadvantages' versus other methods because it requires a high degree of surgical skill to pierce the skull with a sharp instrument in a blind procedure."

And to think that learned judges are able to state without equivocation that a ban on a gruesome procedure of this type is unconstitutional! Reading the transcripts of the judgement on Stenberg vs. Carhart, you`d think we are dealing with a bunch of Nazi doctors discussing their latest lethal human experiments. It boggles the mind to realize that Al Gore wants to impose a litmus test for future Justices who favour this type of butchery. 

The Supreme Court could have expressed itself in much plainer English in striking down state bans on partial-birth abortion (D&X) which it equated with another legal method of abortion (D&E), and wrote: 

"We base our decision on our own deeply felt personal belief that nothing - and we mean nothing - can ever trump a woman's right to have an abortion. We recognize that this decision has little to do with law, the facts or common sense, but this is the way it's going to be because we say so. The majority believes that the partial-birth method (D&X), in which the baby is pulled most of the way, and then has its brains sucked out, may be safer than the alternative (D&E) - cutting the fetus up in the womb, then pulling the pieces out, during which process a broken fetal bone might damage the mother." 

If one follows the majority's logic, clearly the best way of carrying out late-term abortions would be to pull the fetus all the way out, then take it to another room and shoot it. However, even the most hardened abortionists recognize this as murder.

If anything is to overturn Roe vs. Wade, one cannot but firmly believe that this brutal U.S. Supreme Court decision will be the linchpin to its demise.

Thaddée Renault

Fredericton, New Brunswick


Return to the Unborn Children's Website

Return to Council #9496