Judicial Activism Strikes Again – Partial-birth Abortion Ban Struck Down

[aimee]

Each day brings fresh examples of an out-of-control judiciary. Last Friday, the 8th U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a federal ban on partial-birth abortions, signed into law by President Bush in 2003.

The court ruled that while the ban on this hideously cruel procedure had an exception for the mother’s life, no such ban that didn’t also contain an exception for the health of the mother would pass constitutional muster.

As the court knows, health exceptions are always interpreted to include mental health. So, if any medical professional is willing to state that not having the procedure endangers the mother’s psychological well-being, the ban can be avoided.

In other words, the 8th Circuit Appeals Court is saying that the only ban on partial-birth abortion that’s constitutional is a symbolic “ban” – a prohibition that’s completely meaningless.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was passed overwhelmingly with bi-partisan support in Congress, after nine years of debate and hearings. More than 70% of the American people support the ban. The American Medical Association states that there is no medical reason to perform the ghastly procedure.

Yet all it took was a few unelected judges to make the foregoing irrelevant.

The 8th Circuit decision follows similar rulings by federal judges in New York and San Francisco. All are under appeal and expected to eventually end up before the Supreme Court --all the more reason that future nominations must reflect a true understanding of the Constitution and a respect for the value of human life.

[Action Alert] The Rick Scarborough Report

stopactivistjudges.org

 

[miguel]

aimee:

Each day brings fresh examples of an out-of-control judiciary. Last Friday, the 8th U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a federal ban on partial-birth abortions, signed into law by President Bush in 2003.

The court ruled that while the ban on this hideously cruel procedure had an exception for the mother’s life, no such ban that didn’t also contain an exception for the health of the mother would pass constitutional muster.

As the court knows, health exceptions are always interpreted to include mental health. So, if any medical professional is willing to state that not having the procedure endangers the mother’s psychological well-being, the ban can be avoided.

In other words, the 8th Circuit Appeals Court is saying that the only ban on partial-birth abortion that’s constitutional is a symbolic “ban” – a prohibition that’s completely meaningless.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was passed overwhelmingly with bi-partisan support in Congress, after nine years of debate and hearings. More than 70% of the American people support the ban. The American Medical Association states that there is no medical reason to perform the ghastly procedure.

Yet all it took was a few unelected judges to make the foregoing irrelevant.

The 8th Circuit decision follows similar rulings by federal judges in New York and San Francisco. All are under appeal and expected to eventually end up before the Supreme Court --all the more reason that future nominations must reflect a true understanding of the Constitution and a respect for the value of human life.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to limit the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.
US Constitution: Article III. Section 2.:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Congress needs to use this mechanism to make a law saying the Supreme Court (and any other federal court) has no appellate jurisdiction over state abortion laws for example. The President then needs to enforce this law when the Supreme Court tries to thwart it. This is a Constitutional battle that must be fought. The alternative is dictatorship under the Courts. Ultimately, this would have the side benefit of taking much of the political heat out of judicial appointments.