SUMMER 2000

Court Rejects Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

Election of Bush as President Takes on Added Importance

On June 28, a sharply divided Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska state law banning partial-birth abortions -- a decision sure to escalate a bitter national debate that has raged ever since the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 that legalized abortion on demand.  By a 5-4 vote, the justices said the Nebraska law violates women's right to abortion by imposing an "undue burden."

The ruling said the Nebraska law, which pro-life state Attorney General Don Steinberg said is aimed only at the partial-birth abortion method, could criminalize other abortion methods as well.  The law made it a crime if someone performing an abortion "partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child before killing the unborn child and completing the delivery."

Missouri pro-lifers maintain that this decision does not necessarily apply to the state's Infant Protection Act, enacted over the veto of Governor Mel Carnahan in 1999.  The Missouri law deals with infanticide and is specifically worded to exclude abortion from its coverage.  Pam Manning, president of Missouri Right to Life, said, "If the state cannot define infanticide as a crime when a child, mostly removed from the mother's body, is brutally killed then the Supreme Court is expanding the right to abortion, not just defending it."  She continued, "We urge people to read the Supreme Court's decision for themselves.  In it they will com face-to-face with the human carnage involved in this abortion procedure which abortionist, and their friends Al Gore and Mel Carnahan, are so eager to defend."

The debate over partial birth abortions has already inserted itself into politics.  In the Missouri U.S. Senate race, incumbent Senator John Ashcroft has consistently supported a ban on the barbaric procedure, while as governor Mel Carnahan twice vetoed bans.  In the presidential race, Democrat Al Gore opposes bans on partial-birth abortions, but Republican George W. Bush supports them.

Considering the close pro-life/pro-abortion split by the Supreme Court on this decision, Bush's election as president becomes extremely important to pro-life hopes.  Gore has left no doubt that he would appoint justices who would support abortion on demand.

Gore said, "This is now clearly an important issue in this presidential campaign,"  He cited the "razor-thin" margin of the vote and the fact there could be several vacancies on the court in the next few years.  "The presidential election will also decide the future of the Supreme Court ..." he said.

Bush denounced the decision.  "State should have the right to enact reasonable laws and restrictions, particularly to end the inhumane practice of ending a life that would otherwise live," he said.  "I hope and expect that we can come up with a law that meets constitutional muster, and unlike Al Gore, I pledge to fight for a ban on partial birth abortion," he continued.

In response to the Nebraska ruling, Wanda Franz, Ph.D., president of the National Right to Life Committee, commented, "The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Roe v. Wade equals partial-birth abortions. . . and Al Gore agrees."

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the four dissenting justices in this decision, said "The method of killing a human child ... proscribed by this statues is so horrible that the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion."  He added, "Today's decision, that the Constitution of the United States prevents the prohibition of a horrible mode of abortion, will be greeted by fire-storm of criticism -- as well it should."

The partial-birth abortion decision and dissents are found at http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-830.html 

Did you know that . . .

...the faculty of Concordia University in River Forest, Illinois recommended that former U.S. Senator Paul Simon be given an honorary doctorate. The Lutheran school and its president, Dr. George Heider, disagreed.  The reason was that Simon consistently voted pro-abortion.  "It was the right decision to avoid honoring someone whose views on the God-given sanctity of human life are inconsistent with the word of God, "state the National Lutheran Society

RTL of Cinncinnati Newsletter, March 2000

... the Winter 1999 issue of Animal Times newsletter of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) announced the group's grants to companies developing human embryo testing as one of the alternatives to the use of rats and other beasts in product tests.  One grant supports replacement of rats (with human embryos) in lethal-dose poisoning test for chemicals, household products and pharmaceuticals.

2000 WorldNetDaily.com

... Derek Humphrey's "how-to" film on suicide, based on his book Final Exit, has been linked to two suicides in Hawaii.  The two individuals killed themselves within days after the vide was aired on public-access television in Honolulu, using an asphyxiation method featured on the video.  One victim was a man in his 60s depressed over a failed relationship; the other was a woman with a history of depression.  Neither had a serious physical illness.

Life at Risk,  March/April 2000

Planned Parenthood:  gaining money -- losing patients

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has released its 1998-1999 Annual Report.

"Each year, since 1995, PPFA has showed a steady rise in its profits," comment Jim Sedlak, director of STOPP International, a division of American Life League.  "For an organization that frequently laments that it needs government support and deserves special pricing from drug companies to post this kind of profit is reprehensible."

STOPP has also reported that PPFA has had a total profit of $355.6 million over the last 13 years.

Although PPFA's  profits are increasing, its customer counts are decreasing.  Of their 20 medical services, fifty percent had fewer customers this year than last.

The number of femail birth control customers fell for the fourth straight year, making the 1999 total of 1.85 million the lowest since 1991.

PPFA performed more surgical abortions at its facilities in 1999 (167,928 vs. 165,174), but its referrals for abortion dropped dramatically (from 47,550 to 36,870).  Its total abortion business saw a four percent decline due to recently revealed involvement in fetal tissue research, baby body part sales and its connection to partial-birth abortions.

-by Frank Williams

Missouri Legislation in 2000

James S. Cole, General Counsel

To some extent, every year certain legislators attempt to hijack the pro-life movement into the service of unrelated partisan goals.  When this happens, Missouri Right to Life must work hard to steer a course which focuses solely on saving babies' lives.

In 2000, ordinary election-year maneuvering in the General Assembly was supplanted by the bitterest partisan fights in memory, and none more than the fighting over the allocation of tobacco litigation settlement money.

Missouri Right to Life's concern was raised when it became clear late in February that the House would vote on a bill to allocate broad chunks of the tobacco money for "health".  In the current Governor's Administration, a proper concern for the problem of teen pregnancies leads to the warped "solution" of killing the babies.  Few doubt that providing massive amounts of money for "health" to this Governor and others like him, with no restrictions on the use of that money, would lead to a massive increase in abortions.

MRL's salvaging of an agreement on pro-life language in the tobacco legislation in early March, when the pro-life movement was faces with otherwise certain defeat in the House, did not sit well with some.  A radio broadcaster even aired programs giving incorrect information about what happened and repeated them several times.  When the president of MRL requested time to give the correct facts, the broadcaster would not respond.  When another spokesman for MRL was finally accorded a telephone interview two weeks later, the same broadcaster hung up during the interview rather than allow a description on the air of what had actually happened.

By making an agreement early in March on a way of adding a pro-life amendment to tobacco legislation -- one which was as effective as adding the language to HJR 61 -- MRL kept pro-life legislators from hiding behind party lines.  In effect, MRL kept pro-life legislators of both parties "on the hook" for the babies.  When the Governor's minions in the Legislature repudiated the agreement late in the session, pro-life legislators of both parties provided crucial support for attaching pro-life amendments to all the tobacco bills.  In response, the Governor's pro-abortion forces pulled the bills from the floor.  They preferred no tobacco legislation over tobacco bils with restrictions on abortionists.  MRL will continue to fight for protections when this comes before the General Assembly next year.

ERA CREEPS FROM ITS TOMB

Like a vampire under a full moon, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- thought to have been dead and buried almost twenty years ago -- prowled the halls for the General Assembly in 2000, as in 1998 and 1999.  However, its proponents put on a stronger push this year than in previous years.  It obtained committee approval in both houses, and it garnered valuable time in the House at the end of the session before being tabled.  The federal ERA is the most dangerous attack on the pro-life movement in twenty years.  Make no mistake about it, if it is ratified and put into effect, the ability to enact pro-life legislation of any type, including restrictions on family planning subsidies and parental consent for teen abortions, would be set back for decades.

When other states have put a similarly-worded amendment in their own constitutions, the pro-abortionists have argued strenuously that the amendment prevented the state from enacting any pro-life laws.  The argument succeeded in the 1980's in Connecticut, and, more dramatically, in 1998 in New Mexico.  The New Mexico Supreme Court held that the state ERA mandated not only that abortions be allowed without any restrictions, but that the state pay for poor women's abortions.  If the ERA were to be ratified, the U.S. Supreme Court, as presently constituted, would probably follow the same pro-abortion philosophy. The effect would be nationwide, not confined to just on state.

But isn't the attempt to ratify the ERA illegal?  Not necessarily.  First, Congress could rescind the deadline for ratification.  Second, even without rescinding the deadline, if three or more states ratify the ERA, Congress could just pronounce the amendment ratified.  Third, Congress could do both -- rescind the deadline and, when three more states ratify, declare that the amendment has been adopted.

The fact that Congress controls whether the ERA will be declared in effect if three more states ratify makes it doubly important that we never present the question to Congress.  We must stop the ERA (again!) in Missouri, as well as in all fourteen other states which never ratified it.  Missouri Right to Life will continue to treat the federal ERA as a mortal threat to the pro-life movement.

FETAL TRAFFICKING LEGISLATION

The General Assembly never took serious action to enact the fetal parts trafficking bill sponsored by MRL and other pro-life groups.  It is hoped that the 2001 session will focus on substance instead of partisan posturing, which will allow this important pro-life legislation to be given a fairer chance of enactment than in 2000.