Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Gonzales ruling’

CWH, the father-daughter duo

Kansas’ father-daughter abortionists fight to keep dismemberment method

Hopefully, you are following with deep interest the legal battle surrounding the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, enacted in Kansas April 7 and, less than a week later, in Oklahoma. Naturally, pro-abortionists are challenging both laws in court.

The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, is a law that prohibits the horrific abortion method in which a living unborn child in her mother’s womb is ripped apart into pieces by an abortionist using sharp metal tools.

Kansas abortionists are waging their attack in the state court system. In a highly unusual move that indicates the national importance of the proceeding, the entire 14-member Kansas Court of Appeals will hear oral argument on the issue next Wednesday. (see more here)

Not since the epic campaign to end gruesome partial-birth abortions have pro-lifers had such an opportunity to provide the Supreme Court with a reason to curb abortion on demand.

The Act outlaws an immeasurably painful and barbaric procedure and bases its legal foundation on the High Court’s very own words (emphasis added):

“[W]hen it has a rational basis to act, and it does not impose an undue burden, the State may use its regulatory power to bar certain procedures and substitute others, all in furtherance of its legitimate interests in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including life of the unborn.” [Gonzales v Carhart, 550 U.S. at 158]

The “rational basis” for the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act is simple: dismemberment abortions are repugnant and unacceptable in a civilized society. Kansans asserted their right to curb medical abuse and show respect for the Unborn.

All abortions are not precluded by the Act– only one method—and therefore, there is no “undue burden” on a woman’s “right” to abortion.

However, abortionists are hoping against hope that the Gonzales Court didn’t really mean that the state can regulate abortion and that the nebulous term “undue burden” means anything that inhibits abortionists’ preferences.

Judge Hendricks

Judge Larry Hendricks used wrong evaluation standard

LOWER COURT EMBRACES ABORTION CLAIMS
Were they allowed to choose their own judge, Kansas’ father-daughter abortionists– Herb Hodes and Traci Nauser at the Center for Women’s Health– could not have done better than Shawnee District Court Judge Larry Hendricks. On June 25th, at the first hearing on the dismemberment bill, Judge Hendricks hardly paused for even a second after oral argument ended before slapping an injunction on the Act for a variety of wrong reasons.

Lawyers for Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt adamantly maintain that Judge Hendricks’ most fundamental error was failing to assume at the outset that the Act was valid. When “rational basis” laws like the Act are examined, the standard is to PRESUME validity and then attorneys for the challengers must prove to the court that the Act is not valid.

This principle was clearly reiterated this week in a different abortion lawsuit by noted 7th Circuit Appellate Judge Daniel Manion (see here). Manion also points out that it is only for abortion—unlike all other areas of medicine—that a practitioner may bring a suit on behalf of a patient solely because the physician finds a regulation cumbersome!

Yet that’s exactly what’s happening in Kansas. Abortionists want to continue doing dismemberment abortions in their office for as much as $2,000 each. And because alternative abortion techniques are less profitable, they advance a public propaganda campaign that “the alternatives lack proof of improved safety.”

“DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP”
ACOG (the American College of Obstetrician-Gynecologists) is strongly pro-abortion and has a legislative policy that opposes any state “interference” with medical recommendations. They especially oppose mandates for pre-abortion ultrasounds and cancer warnings.

ACOG logoACOG filed a ‘friend of the court’ brief for the Center for Women’s Health– as did a group of one dozen abortionists and abortion-referring practitioners (all but one from the Kansas City area). The singular message of both briefs was that a ban on the dismemberment procedure would have “adverse impact on the doctor-patient relationship.”

But how absurd is the use of the word “relationship” in the abortion context? What kind of a relationship is it when the mother is not told that her son or daughter will be shredded while she is sedated? What kind of relationship is it when the littlest patient is ignored and called a “pregnancy that will be removed?”

Also consider that the so-called relationship is really a one-way decision by “a highly qualified specialist” (according to the Kansas practitioners’ brief!) who insists that the Legislature may not weigh in on grizzly, inhumane abortion methods.

The Kansas district court has misinterpreted the Gonzales standard and invented a state right to abortion. Let’s hope the Kansas Court of Appeals rectifies it.

Read Full Post »

stop dismembering posterKansans for Life today submitted an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief, supporting Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt’s position in the matter of the ground-breaking Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act.

The A.G. is appealing a lower court block on the law with a hearing scheduled Dec. 9 in front of the full, fourteen-member state Court of Appeals. The fact that this appeal is being expedited to the full court, instead of a 3-member panel, is extremely unusual and shows the high stakes involved.

The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act was enacted in Kansas this April (followed within days by Oklahoma). The Act is model legislation developed by the National Right to Life Committee that is designed to pass U. S. Supreme Court scrutiny and would prohibit the brutal shredding of unborn children while still alive inside their mothers.

According to state reporting data, Kansas has seen a rise in such horrific abortions, from 584 in 2013 to 637 in 2014. All three abortion businesses in Kansas offer such procedures, with one admitting on national television they cost around $2,000.00 apiece.

THE TRUTH OF DISMEMBERMENT
Abortions by dismemberment are done mainly after the first trimester, when the unborn baby is too large to pass through the suction tubing of the abortion machine. In a dismemberment abortion, the abortionist continually reaches into the mother’s womb with a variety of sharp-edged metal clamps and tools, yanking off parts of the child and pulling them out onto a tray.

Infamous abortionist LeRoy Carhart (who still holds a medical license in Kansas) has described this procedure in court as “dismembering” and recounts how he uses ultrasound guidance so he knows that these unborn victims are still alive, with hearts beating, as the procedure unfolds.

medical arm with abortion toolAlthough pro-abortionists (and nearly every media outlet) refer to these abortions as D&E abortions, D&E is actually a broader term, encompassing the removal of baby body parts—whether parts are torn off of still-alive unborn children or taken off unborn children already dead through the intentional administration of a feticide or by the snipping of the umbilical cord. The Kansas and Oklahoma Acts only bar dismemberment abortions performed on a still-living unborn child.

Abortion attorneys are claiming that women’s health demands this barbaric procedure. This was also their claim when it came to partial-birth abortions, which the U. S. Supreme Court rejected in their 2007 Gonzales ruling. In that decision, the Court upheld that the federal ban on partial-birth abortions — forbidding an inhumane abortion procedure in order to show respect for the developing unborn child and to regulate medicine — was a proper exercise of legislatures.

The impetus for a ban on dismemberment abortion was the actual written comments by the Justices in the Gonzales decision, and in an earlier partial-birth ruling, Stenberg, that acknowledged the horrific abortion procedures.

Ginsburg

Justice Ginsburg

Justice John Paul Stevens, an abortion supporter, in comparing partial-birth abortion to dismemberment abortion, said, “that the State furthers any legitimate interest by banning one but not the other, is simply irrational.” [Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 946-947]

Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, an abortion supporter, said both methods “could equally be characterized as ‘brutal,’… involving as it does ‘tear[ing] [a fetus] apart’ and ‘rip[ping] off’ its limbs.” [Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 181, 182]

The Court essentially encouraged states to bar abortion methods that, ”might cause the medical profession or society as a whole to become insensitive, even disdainful, to life…” Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 961

Barbarism is exactly what the Kansas and Oklahoma legislature intended to stop when enacting the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, yet both states have been blocked by court injunctions from allowing this law to go into effect.

LOWER COURT ADOPTS ABORTION POSITION
Shawnee District Court Judge Larry Hendricks has apparently not read the relevant U.S. Supreme Court rulings. His decision to issue an injunction in June (read more here) blocking the Act declared that it:

  • would be an unacceptable limitation (“undue burden”) on the so-called right to abortion created by Roe in 1973 (as the abortion attorneys interpret it) and
  • violates an even broader “right” to abortion that the judge says exists in our 1859-adopted Kansas Constitution.
Judge Hendricks

Judge Hendricks

The argument that Kansas has any right to abortion enshrined in our state Constitution has repeatedly been rebutted and called “a fantasy” in filings from the Attorney General.

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court said in Gonzales that abortionists do not have any right to demand certain procedures: Physicians are not entitled to ignore regulations that direct them to use reasonable alternative procedures. The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice.” [Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 163]

The abortionists’ argument that the Dismemberment Abortion ban restricts a “common” method is actually a plea that they be allowed to keep methods that are more expeditious and profitable for them.

Kansans for Life’s amicus brief amplifies why this Act conforms to the U.S. Supreme Court’s position that some abortion methods are unacceptable and “will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life.’ “[Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 156-157]

Read Full Post »

Unborn child. 16 wks

Unborn child. 16 wks

Kansas is days away from a House vote on Senate Bill 95, the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act. The bill has already passed the Kansas Senate, 31-9, where pro-abortion senators refused to discuss the particulars of the abortion method (see here) which kills a baby by tearing her apart, limb from limb.

Looking ahead to see how the law might fare at the highest court, of great relevance to SB 95 are the two U.S. Supreme Court partial-birth abortion rulingsStenberg v Carhart (2000) and Gonzales v Carhart (2007).

Stenberg struck down Nebraska’s partial-birth abortion ban. Gonzales upheld the federal partial-birth abortion ban. Justice Anthony Kennedy was on the losing side in 2000 and the winning side in 2007.

In both cases, Justice Kennedy consistently blasted avoidance of describing what was actually occurring during both partial-birth and D&E /dismemberment abortions. Writing for the dissent in Stenberg, Kennedy asserted it was

necessary at the outset to set forth what may happen during an abortion… citizens [should examine] these grave and serious issues, as they must if we are to progress in knowledge and understanding and in the attainment of some degree of consensus.”

Kennedy faulted the Stenberg majority for exalting abortionists’ preferences and omitting

“the perspective of a society shocked when confronted with a new method of ending human life… The State’s constitutional authority is a vital means for citizens to address these grave and serious issues.

Kennedy also exposed the gruesome details of the D&E/ dismemberment method in his Stenberg dissent:

“As described by Dr. Carhart, the D&E procedure requires the abortionist to use instruments to grasp a portion (such as a foot or hand) of a developed and living fetus and drag the grasped portion out of the uterus into the vagina. Dr. Carhart uses the traction created by the opening between the uterus and vagina to dismember the fetus, tearing the grasped portion away from the remainder of the body…. [until the unborn baby] ‘bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb… In Dr. Carhart’s words, the abortionist is left with ‘a tray full of pieces.’” 

Abortionist Carhart, retains a Kansas medical license

Abortionist Carhart, retains a Kansas medical license

It is precisely this inhumane D&E/ dismemberment method which Kansas wants banned with SB 95.

Seven years later, writing for the majority Gonzales opinion that upheld the federal partial-birth abortion ban, Justice Kennedy penned,

[abortionists] acknowledged that they do not describe to their patients what [the D&E and partial-birth] procedures entail in clear and precise terms’) …[yet] “it is precisely the way in which the fetus will be killed that is of legitimate concern to the State.”

While the Court called abortion details important for public consideration, long-time abortion promoters David Grimes and Carol Joffe praised the suppression of that information Feb. 19 (see here). They wrote

“D&E shifts the emotional burden of the procedure from the woman to the physician, and that is entirely appropriate. One of our most important roles as physicians is to ease suffering, both physical and emotional. The specifics of abortion methods can be unpleasant…”

This is a stunning rebuke of the “choice” slogan! It praises a paternalistic denial of facts as “appropriate” for women considering D&E/ dismemberment abortion—something physicians wouldn’t dare do with patients facing other invasive medical procedures.

SHOCK FOR POST-ABORTIVE WOMEN
Hiding what happens in abortion is harmful to public policy-making. But also consider how shocking and profoundly disturbing the truth would be for women who have already obtained a D&E/ dismemberment abortion—no matter how long ago. It is likely the case that most of these women are only now learning what a horrible, painful death was inflicted on their unborn child!

Modern science makes that realization more palpable and more undeniable. Ultrasound technology and fetal medicine confirm how very developed is the unborn child in the second trimester– which is the age when many D&E/ dismemberment abortions are obtained. Excerpts (see here) from the Kansas Health Department “Woman’s Right to Know” handbook  explain:

Unborn child, 20 weeks

Unborn child, 20 weeks

At 14 weeks, the unborn child now produces a wide variety of hormones. Also, the arms reach final proportion to body size.
By 15 weeks, the entire unborn child, except for parts of the scalp, responds to light touch, and tooth development is
underway.
By 18 weeks, the unborn child will release stress hormones in response to
being poked with a needle.
By 20 weeks,
the larynx, or voice box, moves in a way similar to movement seen during crying after birth.

Did women know these gestational development facts before assenting to a D&E/ dismemberment abortion? Unlikely–since abortionists themselves have admitted in federal trials that they hid the gruesome details of the procedure, and current abortion supporters approve of that suppression.

When it comes to exposing that the action of D&E/ dismemberment abortion is to rip limbs and tear organs from living, unborn children, Justice Kennedy was correct to claim (in Gonzales) that “D&E is a procedure itself laden with the power to devalue human life.”

Read Full Post »

Nebraska would become the first state to outlaw abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on medical evidence that babies at that age feel pain.

UPDATE March 30: The bill won 1st round, 38-5.

If Bill 1103 were to pass, it would surely face a court challenge and end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, which the National Right to Life Committee would welcome. Pro-lifers wonder,

“Torture is routinely condemned, even when used against our worst enemies in a time of war.   How can society continue to justify the “right” to torture defenseless babies in the womb with the rhetoric that women need abortion for them to be full and equal members of American society?”

Six states — Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Minnesota, Oklahoma and Utah — already require that pregnant women be told an abortion could cause pain, but Nebraska would be the first to restrict abortion due to pain.   Anesthesia specialists were scheduled to present medical confirmation of the unborn’s sensitivity to pain.

The Kansas 2010 House schedule of upcoming bills lists a similar prohibition for late abortions done for the mother’s “mental health.” HB 2166 from Rep. Steve Huebert (R-Valley Center) would permit abortions after viability only to save the life (more…)

Read Full Post »