Supremes Hearing from Pro-Lifers as Court Considers Partial-Birth Abortion Case

For those of you who don’t know what partial birth abortion is, let me fill you in.
Partial birth abortion is the practice of partially delivering a late term baby, feet first, leaving only the head in the mother’s birth canal. The abortionist then stabs a hole in the back of the baby’s head and sucks the brain out of the skull. Without the brain, the baby’s head collapses and the corpse is then pulled the rest of the way out of the birth canal.
It sounds like a grade ‘B” horror film, but regrettably, this horror is not only true, but also occurring with great regularity in our country right now.
People, we need to pray about this so much. Please pray that the Supreme Court will put an end to this barbaric practice.

(AgapePress) – The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing from those who survived abortions as it decides whether to uphold a ban on partial-birth abortions.
Texas-based Liberty Legal Institute has filed a brief on behalf of two victims who survived late-term abortions and who now speak out on the partial-birth abortion case. The case, Gonzales v. Carhart, was picked up by the high court when the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the federal abortion ban, also known as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
Hiram Sasser, director of litigation at Liberty Legal, says his firm’s brief is unique. “This is the first time in this partial-birth abortion arena that the U.S. Supreme Court’s going to hear from survivors of late-term abortions,” he explains.
“One of our clients was a victim of saline abortion,” Sasser continues. “Her mother thought that she was dead, and the doctor thought she was dead. [But] when she came out she was alive and, miraculously, was able to be saved and go into a nice family home.” The abortion survivor is now 30 years old.
According to the Liberty Legal attorney, members of the Supreme Court — for the first time — are going to be see the faces of children who are affected by late-term abortions.
“[The justices are] going to see that [these individuals’] lives are worthy of a chance to live and that they have a story to tell,” he says. And that story, says Sasser, is a story of survival — “that they are alive and [that] they, through their lives, represent those many children who are lost through these late-term and partial-birth abortions.”
Sasser says there is no difference between killing a baby that is partially delivered, as in the gruesome partial-birth procedure, and one that is completely delivered.
Another pro-family legal group, Liberty Counsel, also filed a brief with the Supreme Court earlier this week, arguing that Congress was correct when it passed the PABA legislation in 2003 — that is, babies who are only inches away from birth must be granted the same inalienable right to life that is granted to children who complete the birth process. The brief also contends that right should be interfered with by a claim that the “health” of the mother somehow justifies killing the child.
Erik Stanley with Liberty Counsel says the procedure is never necessary to protect the health of the mother. “Abortion doctors use the health exception, which contains no standards, to justify the procedure,” he states. “This is a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse.” In addition, he says, if the same procedure were performed on a convicted criminal, it would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. “The partial-birth abortion procedure is gruesome and barbaric,” Stanley notes.
Liberty Counsel filed its brief on behalf of Jill Stanek, an Illinois nurse who witnessed first-hand — and subsequently testified before Congress about — babies who were born alive and then set aside to die. Stanek’s strong pro-life stand and personal accounts played a prominent role in bringing the disturbing practice to public attention.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in late February to hear Gonzales v. Carhart. It represents the first opportunity for the John Roberts-led court to consider the issue of abortion — and the first chance for Associate Justice Samuel Alito to vote on such a case. The justices could issue their ruling next year.

Original Article.

Leave a Reply

*