Partial-Birth Abortion Banned!!!

In the midst of all the anger and sadness in our country after the Virginia Tech massacre, we can find much joy in this significant day in the history of the U.S.A.!

Today, in Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380 (read official decision here), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that "the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion" (Breitbart). In other words, Congress' banning of abortion does not violate previous laws permitting abortion.

However, that means this decision does not outlaw first-trimester abortions, when most abortions take place, nor the usual second-trimester procedure called "dilation and evacuation" (D&E).

For clarity's sake, in D&E "the doctor dilates the cervix and then inserts surgical instruments into the uterus and maneuvers them to grab the fetus and pull it back through the cervix and vagina. The fetus is usually ripped apart as it is removed, and the doctor may take 10 to 15 passes to remove it in its entirety" (Gonzalez v. Cathart). No, that's not outlawed with this ruling.

What was banned is called "partial-birth abortion" or "intact D&E" (don't you just love euphemisms?). I once asked a class of college students "How many of you have heard of partial-birth abortion?" Most nodded or raised their hands. Then I asked "What is it?" Blank stares. No one knew. So I asked them to break the words down, and as they did the lights went on.

Well, what was it that went on in their minds? Why would Congress' 2003 Act say "there was a moral, medical, and ethical consensus that partial-birth abortion is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited" (Gonzalez v. Cathart)?

Here's what the decision describes as "intact D&E": "The procedure that prompted the federal Act and various state statutes...is a variation of the standard D&E [described above], and is herein referred to as "intact D&E." The main difference between the two procedures is that in intact D&E a doctor extracts the fetus intact or largely intact with only a few passes, pulling out its entire body instead of ripping it apart. In order to allow the head to pass through the cervix, the doctor typically pierces or crushes the skull" (Gonzalez v. Cathart).

Did the lights go on for you? Let the mental images sink in. That was happening in this country until today. I wonder if there was a rush this week to get them in before this ban took effect.

Sadly, the moral confusion on this issue still exists as 4 justices dissented and doctors only get two years in prison for performing an "intact D&E." And, what do the Democratic candidates for president think? Edwards said he couldn't "disagree more strongly" with the Court. Obama said "I strongly disagree," and Hillary said this decision is an "erosion of our constitutional rights." Don't forget to read their comments in light of what "intact D&E" actually is.

In the end, I hope this moral haze lifts soon, and I pray that this day will be remembered as the day the crack started in the armor of legalized abortion in the U.S.

If you want to better understand this procedure from the Christian worldview--and you should--and how to knowledgeably and persuasively argue against it, please read these excellent articles by Greg Koukl from Stand To Reason:

• Partial-Birth Abortion Is Not About Abortion
• Partial-Birth Abortion: Objections and Misunderstandings
• Stepping Over The Line
• Morally Velocitized
• Nothing Hidden in D&X