Washington, D.C. — Operation Rescue’s Troy Newman and Keith Mason were at the U.S. Supreme Court with pro-lifers from around the nation, including Fr. Frank Pavone, Rev. Pat Mahoney, and many others, for the oral arguments in the twin cases of Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, the challenges to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003. It was a cold, rainy day out at the steps with pro-aborts chanting and Christians preaching.
Meanwhile, those who were inside the hearing reported an interesting exchange between justices about how to refer to the baby in the womb. Is “it” a child or a fetus or some kind of half-and-half being? To be honest, we found that a little absurd. Location of the baby does not affect his or her humanity, and only some kind of metaphysically contorted argument would propose such a thing. Humanity is determined at the moment of conception when a new, unique person is created who bears the image of God. However, it seems that Scalia was trying to provoke some logical thought among his colleagues with his comments.
Fr. Pavone attended the hearing and has written the following insightful summary. You may read the transcripts of the historic Supreme Court hearing for yourself at the following links:
Gonzales v. Carhart
Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood
We ask for continued prayer for a life-affirming decision by the Court as they take the cases under advisement. A decision is expected in the spring.
-Operation Rescue Staff
Half-fetus, half-child
By Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life
In one of his few remarks during the two hours of arguments in the Supreme Court today about partial-birth abortion, Justice Scalia responded to Justice Stevens’ assertion that we should say “fetus” rather than child.. Justice Scalia said, “half-fetus, half-child.”
The point was clear. This is not simply about abortion. This is a hijacking of the delivery process for the purpose of killing the child. This is infanticide. I don’t know why Justice Scalia was otherwise so quiet, and Justice Alito completely silent during the arguments, but I know one reason I would be. The barbarity of partial-birth abortion is so self-evidently wrong that it is beyond dispute, beyond discussion, that it should not be legal in our country – or anywhere else, for that matter. Silence in this matter speaks volumes.
In the course of the two hours of oral arguments, the Court considered three key reasons why abortion advocates want the Court to strike down the Federal ban on partial-birth abortion: a) the ban lacks a health exception; b) the ban is too broad, that is, by its wording it actually bans most if not all second and third trimester D&E (dismemberment) abortions rather than just partial-birth abortion, and c) the ban is vague, and because the language is not clear and specific enough, doctors won’t know if it really applies to them.
Having listened carefully to the oral arguments and having read all the briefs, I don’t think the abortion advocates made their case, and I don’t think a majority of the Justices think they did either.
One of the most important admissions made in the arguments by the pro-abortion side was that we really have no measurements about what kind of a health need is met by partial-birth abortion. Their key argument, after all, is that the procedure must be allowed for the sake of women’s health. They admitted that the Court could ban this procedure if its health advantages were minimal rather than significant, yet they could not establish, by statistical measurement, the assertion that the health advantages of partial-birth abortion are significant.
In regard to safety, one of the key questions from Chief Justice Roberts was that if, as the abortionists claim, partial-birth abortion is safer because it requires fewer insertions of instruments into the woman’s body, why would it not then also follow that the safest method is live birth altogether, with the killing of the child outside the womb? The pro-abortion side did not have an answer to that specific question, which proves the point that Congress and the Bush Administration make, namely, that this procedure must be banned so that society has a clear barrier against infanticide.
Isn’t it just amazing that in our highest court in this great nation, this debate occurred today about the legality of “dismemberment” and “pulling the arms and legs off” a child. In the end, it’s not a matter of which version of killing should be used. It’s a matter of stopping the killing altogether.
Great article Father Pavone!
I am praying for the much needed Divine Intervention on this matter. It is beyond me to think of the symantics involved by pro-abortionist to justify the dismemberment, murdering of these innocents.
I am moved by the question of Justice Roberts regarding the alive birth question. It illustrates the reality of abortion, partial birth, and D/C.
May Our Lady wrap her mantal around these Justices, and guide them with Grace, that they will make the right decision, and stop offending her Merciful Son.
I offer all of my sufferings, all of my prayers for this intention, praying with confidence that His will will be done.
God Bless the Pro-Life movement, and all the wonderful souls that work so hard for the truth.
In His Holy and Merciful Name,
Theresa, CT
it is sad to read the transcript of this case, as they so coldly discuss chopping womb children into chunks, or sucking the brains out of their almost born skulls.WHAT A CHOICE!!!
I just have one basic response to this horrendous issue. There can be no justification for late term abortions. Regardless, of what one believes about when the child actually is alive and viable becomes moot with this children. They are for all purposes a human being with all the rights of any other human being. The real issue for me is the issue of what penalty is appropriate for the murder of a child? I would also like to note that everyone should be categorized as pro-choice; the two choices being: pro-life or pro-death. Using pro-choice as one who chooses death by abortion is a devious attempt at minimizing the event as simply one’s right to choose.
The picture of that woman kicking the prolifer comes as no surprise. Anyone that would stand up for the choice to murder babies could probably care less about anything or anyone.
It’s hard for me to express my sadness at the cold-hearted, politically motivated comment of Justice Stevens, to the effect that the justices should say “fetus” instead of “baby”. The only parallel I can think of would be if one of the justices on the court that decided the Dred Scott decision had suggested that they say “Negro” instead of “person” while they deliberated the case. Such heinous usage of language is hardly befitting the highest court in the land.
Patial Birth abortion, well my daughter had a partial birth abortion with a seven month baby in the great state of Georgia in the city of Atlanta. the year of our Lord 2005. She told her friends that she heard him cry as they sucked out his brains. My Grand baby my sweet grand son that will never hold nor see. I felt like dying when I heard that she killed him and I don’t feel like living anymore. I can’t ever look at my daughter’s face for I see the pain that she caused an innocent child and I can’t trust her either, because when I get old she will surely pull the plug on me.
Barbara,I’m so sorry to hear that story.How awful.And to think that these cold blooded murderers do this work day in and day out without a second thought for these babies.Your daughter will suffer too.She will never forget that baby’s cry…….AND SHE SHOULDN’T!She is now classified as a murdering mom.Once again,I am so sorry for your loss.God bless you.