Limitation on freedoms is not a new concept. Speech is, on the whole, free, but
there are some utterances that can get you in trouble with the law. Shouting “Fire!”
in a crowded theater or joking about shooting the president are good examples. In
other words, there is legal precedent for placing limitations on constitutional
rights. Technically, abortion is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. However,
the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and decisions of the Court carry the
weight of the Constitution until they are overturned. For a federal judge to say
that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban places “an undue burden on a woman’s right
to choose an abortion”, thus making it unconstitutional, is a mighty strong
statement and had better be backed up with legal precedence. It will be very interesting
to see if this makes it to the Supreme Court.
On a side note, if a fetus is not a person, and thus not protected, when it is essentially
birthed to be aborted, what makes it a person if such a procedure is not performed?
I really don’t think it’s reactionary to say that the next logical step is legalized
infanticide. If this ruling goes unchallenged, we may one day wake up to headlines
telling us that a law protecting newborns places an undue burden on a woman’s right
to kill her infant.
SAN FRANCISCO – In a ruling with coast-to-coast effect, a federal judge declared
the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Tuesday, saying it infringes
on a woman’s right to choose.
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — A pro-life law firm has filed an amicus brief on
behalf of 25 pro-life members of Congress in an effort to help the Bush administration
defend the partial-birth abortion ban from pro-abortion lawsuits seeking to overturn