Related articles and links |  1 of 18

Federal judge in Nebraska: "No reasonable person" could support Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
Their ultimate judgment was the same—the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is unconstitutional because it doesn't have a "health of the mother" clause—but the tone is radically different between today's federal court decision and last month's similar decision by a judge in New York. In the latter, U.S. District Judge Richard C. Casey made his decision with dragging feet, calling partial-birth abortion "a gruesome, brutal, barbaric, and uncivilized medical procedure" and many of the arguments against it "theoretical or false."

Today's decision from U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf, however, slams Congress for saying that the procedure is never necessary.

"According to responsible medical opinion, there are times when the banned procedure is medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman and a respectful reading of the congressional record proves that point," he wrote. "No reasonable and unbiased person could come to a different conclusion. … The long and short of it is that Congress arbitrarily relied upon the opinions of doctors who claimed to have no (or very little) recent and relevant experience with surgical abortions, and disregarded the views of doctors who had significant and relevant experience with those procedures. It is unreasonable to ignore the voices of the most experienced doctors and pretend that they do not exist."

Don't bother reading the 474-page decision, however. (Kopf begins his opinion with an apology for its length, saying, "I pity the poor appellate judge who has to slog through this thing.") Ultimately, while it's disappointing that three out of three federal judges ruled the ban unconstitutional, this is just one more stepping stone on the way to the Supreme Court.

"No one expected the constitutionality of the ban on partial-birth abortion to be decided at the federal district court level," American Center for Law and Justice chief counsel Jay Sekulow says in a press release. "The stage is now set for a lengthy and critical legal battle that ultimately will end up at the Supreme Court of the United States."

Sekulow, who called the decision "disappointing but not surprising," says it's wrong for the court to reject testimony on abortion from anyone but an abortionist. "In the opinion, the court refused to consider the expert testimony of well-recognized and highly respected medical experts simply because they had not performed abortions. This conclusion is not only legally flawed but shows the hostility the court exhibits to medical experts who have respect for human life."

More press releases from pro-life groups will be posted at Word of Mouth's website. (Yeah, the site is overly political in this season, posting even Bush radio addresses on job creation and the like, but it's the only place Weblog knows about that compiles press releases from religious conservative groups. If you know another places, let me know.)

More on abortion:

• The forgotten women | Why do "choice" advocates tolerate forced abortion? (Steven Ertelt, National Review Online)
  
  
• 'Cosmetic abortion' fears over ability to identify defects earlier | Doctor who revealed foetuses 'walking' in the womb uses new technology to spot cleft palates (Sunday Herald, Glasgow, Scotland)
  
  
• Donations by nuns to Emily's List questioned | The Immaculate Heart of Mary sisters, the blue-robed nuns who have educated legions of Catholic children in southeastern Michigan, donated $200 to Emily's List, which raises money for Democratic female candidates who support the right to have abortions (Detroit Free Press)
  
  

next page... |  1 of 18

share this page

September (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48