President Bush And Justice Samuel Alito Provide The Difference For The Unborn

In February we published an article, “Our New Supreme Court Justices” that expressed concern on how they would vote on two partial birth abortion cases before the court at that time. Those concerns have proved to be unfounded.

After seven years of determined struggle, our nation has finally seen a federal ban on partial birth abortion become the law of the land.

On April 18, the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the ban, which was passed by wide margins in both houses of congress in 2003. The vote was five to four, with Bush appointee, Justice Samuel Alito providing the difference.

Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the majority opinion with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anton Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito concurring.

The dissenting opinion was unsurprisingly written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former ACLU general counsel and member of the ACLU board of directors. Concurring in the dissent were Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer.

Two previous bans of this barbarous procedure, which basically amounts to infanticide, had also been passed by congress, only to be vetoed by President Clinton.

The current ban, signed by President Bush, had never gone into effect. Various arms of Abortion, Inc immediately filed suits and managed to judge-shop three cases in which the federal ban was deemed unconstitutional. The appeals courts cited lack of concern for the mother’s health.

Attorney General Roberto Gonzalez challenged two of the decisions. The Justice Department brief in Gonzalez vs Cathart argued “That decision overrides Congress’s carefully considered finding, following nine years of hearings and debates, that partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve a mother’s health.”

Public opinion, basically evenly divided on abortion as an issue, has always polled strongly in favor of banning the despicable practice of partial birth abortion. Only the most militant abortion idolater could take exception with a decision to preserve a life nine months in the womb.

Justice Ginsburg read, what was described as a “bitter dissent”, from the bench. Frankly it does one’s heart good to picture her sitting there with her insides in turmoil, face gnarled in anger and foaming, just a little bit, at the edge of her mouth.