Jon Christian Ryter -- Why The Fight Over Partial Birth Abortion

WHY THE FIGHT OVER PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION

By Jon Christian Ryter

June 5, 2004

NewsWithViews.com

A Clinton-appointed U.S. District Court Judge for Northern California ruled unconstitutional the partial birth abortion ban that was overwhelmingly passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush last year. The California case, filed by Planned Parenthood, and decided by US District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton was one of three legal challenges launched within days of Bush signing the measure into law. A similar case was filed in New York case by the National Abortion Federation. The third case was filed by a group of abortion doctors in Nebraska.

In a strongly worded opinion that accused Congress of deliberately misrepresenting scientific facts concerning the procedure, Hamilton decided because of that "perceived misrepresentation," the law was unconstitutional. How did Hamilton know Congress misrepresented the "scientific evidence" that partial birth abortions are never medically necessary? Because Planned Parenthood said Congress misrepresented the facts�not that they presented technical scientific evidence to prove that Congress was wrong or that they schemed to misrepresent the evidence to justify their legislation. but rather, only that Planned Parenthood's lawyers argued that Congress was wrong based on a "demand" for the procedure. (Just hold that final thought for a minute. We'll come back to it.)

Before debating the proposed legislation last year (largely because the US Supreme Court invalidated a Nebraska law in 2003 that banned partial birth abortions), Congress held hearings on the medical merit of the procedure known as partial birth abortion and invited the medical community to participate in the debate before crafting the federal legislation. The opinion of the American Medical Association� which has pronounced liberal views and always supports liberal candidates for public office�was that partial birth abortions are never a medical necessity. Hamilton flatly rejected the view of the medical community in favor of the view of the societal planners at Planned Parenthood that a woman's health would somehow be at risk if this procedure was not available to her.

Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt told the Washington Post shortly after Judge Hamilton's ruling was announced that the decision "...reaffirmed a woman's right to choose and a doctor's right to practice medicine." Since when is killing a full term baby by puncturing its brains with surgical scissors practicing medicine? Feldt also said the ruling was "appropriately critical" of Congress because of what she called a "herd mentality" to pass the bill. The Senate voted 64 to 33 to pass the partial birth abortion bill. The House voted 283 to 189 to pass it. Those members of the House and Senate who place no inherent value on human life such as John Forbes Kerry and his alter-ego Teddy Kennedy, voted against the bill. So did Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Chuck Schumer. Most of the liberal members of the House and Senate whose past tenure was assured by shackling the welfare crowd to the public feeding troughs, voted against banning this horrendous form of infanticide for two reasons. First, there are votes on election day for those who protect the right of women to correct errors made in moments of passion. Second, abortion and the harvesting of body parts for stem cell research and also neonatal transplants are big business. It is an industry worth billions of dollars each year in "sales." And, it is an industry the abortionists and body part harvesters will not surrender without a fight.

Sen. Rick Santorum [R-PA] denounced Hamilton's ruling as a travesty, noting that the judge was very biased. "She is a very liberal judge," he said. "This is a classic example of how judges impose their philosophies on judicial proceedings...she clearly has prejudiced the case." Congressman Steve Charbot [R-OH] who sponsored the measure in the House agreed with Santorum, saying that her ruling was a "...seriously flawed decision by a lone federal judge in San Francisco." Charbot said Congress spent the time to make sure the law was on solid constitutional ground before enacting it, adding that the US Supreme Court would be the final arbiter on this one.

The ruling by Judge Hamilton was a financial boon for Planned Parenthood since the action they filed sought only to protect that organization and its doctors. The narrow ruling by Hamilton protects Planned Parenthood and other organizations associated with them, or doctors who refer patients to them. The ruling does not protect other abortion clinics within the purview of Hamilton's court. The ban, in other words, is still in effect on all other abortion clinics and abortion doctors in that part of Northern California under the jurisdiction of the US District Court of Northern California.

Hamilton and a handful of liberal Congressmen and women and Senators argue that allowing any ban on any form of abortion to exist merely opens the door for conservatives to slowly expand the exclusions by regulation until all forms of abortion are outlawed. Of course, those who offer those arguments know the legislation was crafted specifically to outlaw one form of abortion and one form only, and that it cannot be expanded to include other forms of abortions. But, this will make a good campaign issue this fall as Democrats argue that conservatives are one supreme court justice away from overturning Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton.

But the real issue here is not about abortion or the right of women to obtain them. That right was not infringed upon by this legislation. In fact, that is why the bill gained such universal support in both the House and Senate. What is at issue, and what is not being discussed by anyone is the monetary value of the unborn fetus�if it is delivered intact and undamaged by saline solutions or the abortionist's scalpel. It is at that point in the development of the fetus�at or near full term�that the life within the mother to takes on an added value to the abortionist. That value is found in the harvesting of much needed body parts to correct neonatal malformities. Thanks to 21st century microscopic surgery techniques, physicians can now operate on newly born babies. Neonatal surgeons have actually performed heart transplants, kidney transplants, liver transplants and even heart-lung transplants in unborn fetuses still in their mother's wombs.

And while we marvel at modern scientific and medical technology, no one is asking the all important question: where are those much needed transplant organs coming from? Once you realize they are coming from the babies that are being aborted alive to protect their delicate organs, it puts a whole new meaning on the term "organ harvesting"�particularly since the abortionist may be offering your aborted baby's organs to a national prenatal or neonatal organ bank as orders for hearts, lungs, livers and kidneys from donors with specific blood types are received.

The abortionists have found a brand new, highly profitable sideline to the abortion industry. They are harvesting bodies parts from the bodies of full term babies who are partially delivered and then mercilessly killed by abortionists who have learned that transplantable organs are worth much more than a bucket of hacked up, indiscernible body parts or fetuses that have were cooked in a saline bath before being extracted.. The partial birth abortionist argues that delivering the full term, or nearly full term baby and then killing it in the process of delivery minimizes the risk of leaving a prenatal body part�an arm or a leg�inside the woman during a traditional abortion. But, the real reason for using the partial birth abortion is to be able to harvest usable organs which can be sold, like junk yard car parts, to the highest bidder.

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.

Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, www.jonchristianryter.com has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website. E-Mail: BAFFauthor@aol.com

Home