Jay Sekulow brown noses GOP
Sekulow brown noses GOP
Editor's note:
It is disheartening to see a once respected Christian advocate law firm being turned into a boot-licking lackey of the Republican Party. I know personally that there are Christian men working for the ACLJ that want to see this bloodshed outlawed as much as I do. Nevertheless, as long as Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow leads this Christian funded law firm down the path of supporting bad law that regulates the murder of children by abortion, and lying to Christians that abortion regulations are "pro-life," then such underhanded deceptiveness will be met with public rebuke by Covenant News: others beware. What we need are Christian advocates that will apply political pressure to lawmakers to pass laws that will counterblow the unjust opionions of the courts and see reprobate judges impeached from the bench! This simply can not be done as long as our trusted advocates brown nose baby murdering political parties that fund and regulate abortion.
--Jim Rudd
(Read:
Partial-Birth Ban of No Effect)
ACLJ Files Brief with 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Behalf of Members of Congress in Support of National Ban on Partial-Birth Abortion
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 29, 2004--The American Center for Law and Justice, specializing in constitutional law, announced today it has filed an amicus brief on behalf of members of Congress asking a federal appeals court in San Francisco, California to overturn a decision by a federal district court in San Francisco - one of three cases in which a district court declared the national ban on partial-birth abortion unconstitutional. The brief was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and supports the position of the Department of Justice that the ban is constitutional.
"The ban is needed to put an end to one of the most barbaric and medically useless procedures that targets the most vulnerable among us - the partially born child," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, which is filing briefs in support of the ban in all three cases. "Congress acted properly and constitutionally in passing the ban and we are determined to work to protect the life of the partially born child as this legal challenge continues on its way to the Supreme Court. We are privileged to represent members of Congress in this battle to bring an end to what can only be described as infanticide."
The ACLJ represents 31 members of Congress - all members of the U.S. House of Representatives. They include: Rep. Robert B. Aderholt (R-AL), Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA), Rep. Bob Beauprez (R-CO), Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-TX), Rep. Michael "Mac" Collins (R-GA), Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY), Rep. Jo Ann S. Davis (R-VA), Rep. and Senator-elect Jim DeMint (R-SC), Rep. Jo Ann H. Emerson (R-MO), Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), Rep. Melissa A. Hart (R-PA), Rep. Ernest J. Istook, Jr. (R-OK), Rep. Walter Jones, Jr. (R-NC), Rep. Ric Keller (R-FL), Rep. Steve King (R-IA), Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-ID), Rep. Charles "Chip" Pickering, Jr. (R-MS), Rep. Joseph R. Pitts (R-PA), Rep. Jim R. Ryun (R-KS), Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), Rep. John Sullivan (R-OK).
"Partial-birth procedures represent the beachhead of abortion's assault on postnatal life, the bridge between abortion and infanticide," the brief states. "Absent strong legal barriers and vigorous societal condemnation, partial-birth procedures open the way to legal infanticide." The brief contends that the government has a "vital and compelling interest" in preventing the spread of the practice of abortion into infanticide.
Sharply criticizing the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade to treat unborn children as "non-persons," the brief urges the appeals court not to "compound this fundamental injustice by extending Roe to deny the personhood of partially born children."
The brief argues that "the human being who is partially outside the mother's body is a person entitled to the equal protection of the law" under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
"The history of legal developments of the past century and a half regarding prenatal human life has been a history of increasing recognition and protection of unborn children," the brief states. "Imposition of a 'total birth' requirement for personhood would be to constitutionalize, in extreme form, a distinction that the civil and criminal law is in the process of repudiating."
The brief is posted online (http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/AmicusAppealBrief2.pdf) and contends that the law must be consistent in protecting life. "The physician who strangles a newborn is guilty of murder, but the physician who strangles a partially born baby is exercising a 'liberty,'" the brief states. "A disabled child may recover large sums to compensate for harm suffered in the delivery process, but the mother could have had the same child killed in that same delivery process because she did not want a handicapped baby. . . . Such contrasts make a mockery of the law. . . . The integrity of the legal system calls for inclusion, not exclusion, of partially born children within the term 'person' in the Fifth Amendment."
The brief has been filed with the 9th Circuit. Earlier this month, the ACLJ filed an amicus brief with the 8th Circuit and plans to file next month with the 2nd Circuit in support of the ban.
The American Center for Law and Justice, which specializes in constitutional law, is based in Washington, D.C.
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.j
sp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20041229005121&newsLang=en
Posted by Editor at December 30, 2004 09:00 AM
