R
Rosalinda
Guest
The majority overturned Virginia’s ban on partial-birth abortions on June 3, 2005, without even a review of the record. The only dissenting judge, Niemeyer, gave this astonishingly clear opinion.
“Can we not see that our discussions and the law we make in striking down Virginia’s prohibition [on Partial Birth Abortion] are unfit for the laws of a people of liberty? I wonder with befuddlement, fear and
sadness, how we can so joyfully celebrate the birth of a child, so zealously protect an infant and a mother who is pregnant, so reverently wonder about how human life begins, grows, and develops, and at the same time write to strike down a law to preserve
a right to destroy a partially born infant. If the disconnect is explained by personal convenience, then we must reason that all morality is personal,
without commonality and source. The product of such chaos is unfathomable.”
Read the full Adobe document of the Fourth
Circuit case of Richmond Medical Center vs. Hicks
(rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=xfyqhjbab.0.zxiohjbab.zjzzpde6.4953&p=http%3A%2F%2Fcaselaw.lp.findlaw.com%2Fdata2%2Fcircs%2F4th%2F031821p.pdf).
“Can we not see that our discussions and the law we make in striking down Virginia’s prohibition [on Partial Birth Abortion] are unfit for the laws of a people of liberty? I wonder with befuddlement, fear and
sadness, how we can so joyfully celebrate the birth of a child, so zealously protect an infant and a mother who is pregnant, so reverently wonder about how human life begins, grows, and develops, and at the same time write to strike down a law to preserve
a right to destroy a partially born infant. If the disconnect is explained by personal convenience, then we must reason that all morality is personal,
without commonality and source. The product of such chaos is unfathomable.”
Read the full Adobe document of the Fourth
Circuit case of Richmond Medical Center vs. Hicks
(rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=xfyqhjbab.0.zxiohjbab.zjzzpde6.4953&p=http%3A%2F%2Fcaselaw.lp.findlaw.com%2Fdata2%2Fcircs%2F4th%2F031821p.pdf).