‘In 1979 the Communist Party of China introduced a ‘One-Child Policy’ in aa attempt to control China’s population growth – a policy that subsequently ended in 2015.To enforce this policy, the communists used propaganda and harsh punishments – requiring the use of contraception, abortion, and sterilization to ensure compliance, and imposed enormous fines for violations. Large propaganda billboards were installed throughout the nation to reinforce the message. However in 2020, Climate Alarmists are now copying the Chinese Communists, and have started installing large billboards promoting the same ‘one-child’ message. While it may be argued that Chinese Communist’s Policy was adopted to halt population growth, there is no such argument in western countries today, as most countries have such a low fertility rate which will result in their populations decreasing to such an extent that mass migration from developing nations is required just to maintain stable population. Climate Alarmists peddling a ‘’one-child Policy’’ in Western Nations are merely promoting the suicide of our societies. And they are doing so with lies and misinformation. We need to wake-up quickly to realise how mad and dangerous these Climate Alarmists truely are.’https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP
This guy at the top in the Vatican is definitely out of step with what the Roman organization once held as far as sanctity of life. One example of this is that ‘Pope Francis reportedly congratulated former vice president Joe Biden Thursday, the Biden transition team claimed, even though Biden hasn’t officially won the disputed election and supports unlimited abortions.
Here’s more:
Biden spoke with the Holy Father and thanked him for “extending blessings and congratulations,” according to Axios. Biden also praised the pope for “promoting peace, reconciliation, and the common bonds of humanity around the world,” the publication reported.
“The president-elect expressed his desire to work together on the basis of a shared belief in the dignity and equality of all humankind on issues,” Biden’s transition team said in a statement, Axios reported.
The publication noted that these issues include “caring for the marginalized and the poor, addressing the crisis of climate change, and welcoming and integrating immigrants and refugees into our communities.”
It seems the world is getting wackier with each day and the USA’s 2020 election is one case in point. However, as the Left seek to destroy all sense of anything and everything John Mackay and Dr. Diane Eager answer the question “Is there a real definition of man and woman in a world that wants fluid gender?”
‘The easy bit is that the word “man” refers to an adult human male, and a “woman” is an adult female human. But can we actually give a testable, provable meaning to the traditional words “male” and “female”, or are they just roles allocated for convenience which can be abandoned as life evolves?
This is a battle being fought hardest in school classrooms to conquer the minds of the next generation. Consider the following actual events:
A woman teacher was caught up in a staff room debate about who could use the girls’ toilets and change rooms at her schools. A transgender supporter claimed ‘We can be whatever gender we choose and therefore we must be allowed to use whichever toilet suits our choice’. The frustrated lady teacher retorted: “Why don’t we just look between their legs – that should settle it!”
Second event – November – 2020! Two Christian parents spend several frustrating hours with a Government school principal and deputy. What’s the problem? Their daughter has reported to them that their school class has been ordered to call one boy she.
Mum and dad ask why the school is forcing their child to lie. ‘But that’s just your opinion’ retorts the deputy. ‘If the boy feels he’s a girl we have to accept that. It’s the law!’
But my wife and I are both scientists, state the parents. We can give you a testable definition of what a male or female is. All the creatures we work with have very observable features of male and female. The boy is the one with the testicles who makes sperm. And in every case they are provably different from the females who make ova and babies. And we humans are the same.
So why are you teaching my daughter to lie? And why are you lying about this yourselves? Did you intend to tell us as parents that you had ordered the class to call this boy a girl?
“No,” replied the increasingly embarrassed principal, while a very emphatic “NO!” was uttered by an obvious radical feminist deputy. Government policy is that we must accept whatever gender the students feel they are, and this student feels they are female no matter what your opinion is.
The result? Despite being long-term participants and active supporters on school councils, both parents advise the Principal that because you’re teaching our children to lie and you are lying about it, our children are out of here today – not this afternoon, but right now!
Of course, the school authorities are rightly concerned about what they should tell students’ parents, especially other Christian parents in the school.
How should we react when atheist governments and education are actually lying about gender and sex? How do we define boy or girl, male or female, man or woman? And can we go deeper than that and have a meaningful scientific and legally enforceable definition?
Male and Female
Let’s start with the obvious differences between what we traditionally call gender. Being male or female, whether infant or adult, is provably determined by a person’s chromosomes, and indicated by the resulting reproductive systems and naturally produced hormones. At different stages of a person’s life reproductive systems and related hormonally induced changes to body structures will go through maturation and degenerative processes, but an individual remains either male or female throughout his or her life, from conception, through childhood and adulthood, to death.
The chromosomes that determine whether a person is male and female are named X and Y. A male has an X and a Y, usually written as XY, a female has two Xs, usually written as XX. These are inherited at conception and remain in every cell in the body, with one notable exception for each sex* (see below) for the rest of a person’s life.
Therefore, it doesn’t matter what manipulation is done to the body or mind after conception – a person is male or female throughout life. It doesn’t matter what bits they may get cut off or added on, or any alterations caused by the chosen addition of alternative sex hormones or by blocking their own hormones. In spite of efforts by transgender activists to drive a wedge between gender and sex, neither gender nor sex are determined by an individual’s choice, or by feelings, by externally administered drugs or hormones, or by social acceptance of someone’s choice.
*The only cells in the body that do not have the XY or XX chromosome identity are the reproductive cells, i.e. sperm in a male and ova (eggs) in a female. When these cells are formed the chromosomes are separated and each sex cell gets one of the sex chromosomes. Therefore, sperm will have either an X or a Y, ova will have one of two X’s. But such cells are still male or female, as only males can produce sperm and only females can produce ova?
Where Did Male and Female Come From?
Each human being is formed from the union of one sperm, carrying an X or a Y chromosome, and one ovum, carrying an X chromosome. An X carrying sperm will give rise to a female when its X combines with the X in the ovum. Y carrying sperm give rise to a male when it combines with the X in the ovum. This process can be traced back through the generations to the first human beings – Adam and Eve. Sex is not something you can evolve. It has to be right first time or you die out!
Adam was created male. Therefore, he had an X and a Y chromosome. Eve was created from tissue taken from Adam. All the components needed to make a woman were already in Adam. To make a female from male tissue God took out the Y chromosome and duplicated an X. From then on human beings have reproduced by the process described above.
Adam and Eve were created individually by God. Adam was made from “dust of the ground” i.e. raw materials, and Eve was made from tissue taken from Adam. They were not derived from any other living creature. Human beings are unique and separate creations, and therefore it is irrelevant if other living things, such as fish or plants, can change sex in certain circumstances.
So, theistic evolutionists take note: Those who want to believe in evolution but defend God’s word on men and women, and marriage, will find themselves on shaky ground. If evolution is true, human ancestry goes back to creatures with no distinct sexes and/or interchangeable sexes, and those who oppose God’s rules can claim that blurring the sexes is just part of the natural world, and Christians should not impose their views on it.
I have written before about how deadly Planned Parenthood is for all groups but especially for American blacks. Planned Parenthood is a misnomer as it has nothing to do with parenthood but rather it is all about killing the unborn.
When politicians make laws on whether one lives or dies you had better get worried. Abortion of a human baby has never be abhorrent for the Leftist or the evolutionist. Now, euthanasia is being pushed as a HUMAN RIGHT! Here in Australia ‘In the same week that Stevie Nicks boasted there would have been no Fleetwood Mac had she not aborted her baby, Queensland Premier Anastacia Palaszczuk has vowed to legalise assisted dying.
Stevie Nicks confirmed what honest people have always known – that, despite the fog pro-abortionists like to create, abortion destroys human life for the convenience of others.
She told The Guardian she had conceived a child with The Eagles singer Don Henley in 1979 but that “there’s just no way that I could have had a child then, working as hard as we worked constantly.”
“I knew that the music we were going to bring to the world was going to heal so many people’s hearts and make people so happy. And I thought: you know what? That’s really important.”
So Stevie Nicks had an abortion.
As Fleetwood Mac famously sang, “Loving you isn’t the right thing to do. How can I ever change things that I feel. You can go your own way.”
Freed from the inconvenience of a child, she went on to sell more than 120 million records and to be twice inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
“If I had not had that abortion, I’m pretty sure there would have been no Fleetwood Mac,” she said.
And we all thought the cost of a Fleetwood Mac album was around $20.
When you feel no shame admitting that you judged the life of your unborn child to be of less value than the possibility of a pop music career, you are acknowledging that our culture has crossed a moral line.
But our obsession with individual autonomy – celebrated by Stevie Nicks – is something that should give Queenslander’s reason for pause as Labor promises to legalise euthanasia.
If people applaud Stevie Nicks for judging another human’s life worth sacrificing for a Grammy Award, what is to stop those same people judging our lives worth sacrificing for their own peculiar reasons?
This is not a question the Queensland Premier wants anyone to seriously consider which is why she waited until the middle of a pandemic and just two weeks before the state election to announce her euthanasia policy.
Better for voters to feel rather than think when it comes to euthanasia. And what better time to feel the argument for death than after suffering for months at the hands of a stubborn virus and soul-destroying lockdowns.
The argument for euthanasia derives its emotional power from the picture painted of a terminally ill patient with nothing but intense suffering standing between him and death.
The picture is largely false since there are ways to manage pain for the terminally ill.
Moreover, there are many people in discomfort – physical or emotional – but who are not terminal. Are they to be denied the permanent relief euthanasia provides for want of a terminal illness? But I digress.
The euthanasia candidate will be in a diminished physical condition and probably frightened or despairing, or both. All of which means that his will and his capacity for independent thought will also be weakened.
He will be flat on his back with his relatives and the authority figure of the doctor looking down at him. There can be few better subjects and settings for subtle or not-so-subtle psychological coercion.
The patient will know and will probably be informed that prolonging his life – which the physician says will be brief – places an enormous emotional and financial burden on his family. Many people in this position are likely to accept premature death under coercion.
This is what progressives call “death with dignity”.
There is also the very real prospect that some people who request euthanasia are really looking for reassurance that they are loved and valued despite their physical decline. If the family and the doctor fail to pick up on this, the patient may become trapped by the request and feel that he or she has no choice but to die.
Is this the autonomy of the patient that euthanasia supporters insist is their object?
The systematic killing of unborn children in huge numbers is part of a general disregard for human life that has been growing for some time. Abortion on its own did not cause the disregard, but it certainly deepens and legitimates the nihilism that is spreading in our culture and that finds killing for convenience acceptable.
We crossed lines, at first slowly and now rapidly. We killed unborn children for convenience and harvested their foetal tissue – for science of course – all the while calling it “reproductive health”.
As Stevie Nicks would sing: “Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies.”
Abortion has coarsened us.
If it is permissible to kill the unborn human for convenience, it is surely permissible to kill those thought to be soon to die for the same reason.
And it is inevitable that many who are not in danger of imminent death will be killed to ease their families of burden.
It is nigh impossible to obtain how many babies are murdered (aborted) in Australia each year. One Queensland organization says ‘There is no standardised national data collection on unplanned pregnancy and abortion in Australia, and different states have different laws and regulations – and therefore different reporting mechanisms – regarding abortion procedures.’https://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/factsandfigures/australian-abortion-statistics
Now, the push to make it easier for more and more babies to be murdered is relentlessly pushed by many Australian politicians and ‘A bill now before the upper house of State Parliament, commissioned by Attorney-General Vickie Chapman and introduced by Minister Michelle Lensink, would radically liberalise SA’s abortion laws.
The bill is being put forward under the guise of mere “decriminalisation” – a tactic used by abortion proponents interstate.
At present, abortion in SA is an exemption under criminal law – that is, it’s illegal to take a human life except in the case of an abortion under set conditions.
Backers of “decriminalisation” frequently state that abortion is no different to any other health matter and want it treated as such.
Even if that were true (and it’s not) decriminalisation is a cover for radical change.
The Termination of Pregnancy Bill would permit abortion for any reason up to 22 weeks and 6 days’ gestation – and beyond that (right up to birth) if two doctors agree it is “appropriate”.
Current requirements for hospital attendance by women seeking an abortion will be abandoned in an attempt to liberalise the use of do-it-at-home chemical abortions, e.g. RU486.
Health practitioners will also have their right to conscientious objection severely eroded. They will be required to participate in an abortion in cases of “emergency” and must at all times refer patients seeking an abortion to another health practitioner (in other words, making them a party to the act).
This list of concerns is far from exhaustive.
The bill was only introduced yesterday, but Minister Lensink has stated that she wants the upper house to pass it very soon.
‘I don’t know if you see this above sign in your area, but it’s everywhere in coastal cities of the Western United States. In Berkeley and adjacent cities, it’s been at about every house or yard for a few years. Here in Oregon, I saw one on our street in our neighborhood too. I picked this version as an example, because the one I saw started with “Science Is Real.” They’re called “Values Signs,” to promote so-called leftist “values.” The list is a mixed bag of bromides that read like a religious creed, starting with “we believe.” Leftists treat it like a creed, including a punishment or shunning of those who violate the precepts. An irony of “we believe science is real” is how science has anything to do with belief. If it is real, you know it, not believe it, don’t you? So, in essence the values sign is a doctrinal statement like a church would produce.
The consequences for breaking these decrees are severe in present society. They say, to them kindness is everything. No way. These are some of the most bitter, angry, unkind people I’ve ever met, and it’s been very consistent. I’ve never met people who are so unfriendly, distant, and irritated. Rarely do people with this sign in their yard show kindness. They are plain mean in almost every instance. They are “kind” only if you accept all their list with their definitions with exuberance. What I’m saying is that these are ultimate hypocrites with their standards like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day.
Through the sign, its proponents proclaim their own kindness, their own righteousness in essence, that they “believe” all these things, and I’ve never seen the righteousness lived or the beliefs followed. The sign acts as “virtue signaling,” a modern way to stand on the street corner and beat on their chest to be seen of others. It also functions at accosting the people reading it, their chosen targets of these epithets. It warns away those who disagree that they are not welcome. Stay away. Don’t talk to me.
I can’t cover every point in one post, but they say, science is real. The postmodernism that buttresses the left doesn’t rely on science. According to postmodernism, which includes critical theory, science arrives at its conclusions through the social forces of power and oppression. The left doesn’t care about science. It disregards biological sex, except when it’s convenient. It ignores the evidence of life in the mother’s womb, seen through the ultrasound and surgery on the unborn baby in the uterus. It avoids the fossil record with its evidence of kinds and no transitional forms. It promotes psychological theories like they are science, which are overturned multiple times in a matter of years. If the scientific definition of a pandemic is 1-3 percent deaths in the country, Covid-19 isn’t a pandemic with its .06% deaths, even counting every death with the virus, not because of the virus alone. According to the CDC, only 6% of Covid-19 deaths don’t involve comorbidities, that is, other causes besides Covid-19.
A couple of weeks ago, I spoke to an atheist at his stamp shop, who said he was scientific, so he couldn’t believe the Bible. Among other points in that conversation, I advocated Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations as science, and he scoffed that economics wasn’t a science, even though economics uses the scientific method to explain economic behavior. The Bible makes economic statements as fact, such as “the borrower is servant to the lender” (Proverbs 22:7). This is economic and this is science. Sure, science is real, but not the so-called science of the virtue signaler. When he says “science is real,” he means that God and the Bible are not.
Do black lives matter? Yes. I haven’t heard of a poll that asked Americans if black lives mattered to them, but I’m guessing that if that poll were done, it would be something close to 99% plus of white Americans would say, “Yes, black lives matter.” All black lives matter, not just the ones killed by white police officers. Don’t be fooled into thinking that the three words, black lives matter, mean that black lives matter. BLM is just a political tool. It’s not saving black lives. It’s killing black lives faster than if it did not exist. And that is scientific, if science were real. But again, they’re not interested in actual science.
They say, no human is illegal, because that is their stand in support of illegal aliens, the legal terminology to refer to a person in the United States who is breaking federal immigration laws. “Illegal” means “unlawful” or “criminal.” The non-United States citizen is a criminal or an illegal. The leftist platitude advocates open borders, the elimination of nations, and general lawlessness. It stands for the destruction of the United States.
Do women possess human rights? Yes. Rights apply to every human being. They come from God. A purpose of government is to protect the rights of human beings. Rights are liberties. Every human being is born with certain rights, that among these are life, liberty, and property. The point of saying that women’s rights are human rights is to eliminate distinctions between men and women. Rather than giving women equal opportunity, the goal of this feminist ideal is equal outcome. It promotes women in positions of authority against natural law. If rights come from God and God requires men in authority, then it isn’t a right for women to be in authority. The leftist adage especially emphasizes a woman’s “reproductive rights,” where she is given the choice to end an unwanted pregnancy with abortion. The man has no say in the life or death of his child.
If sex is a social construct, then isn’t a woman’s right also a violation of human rights? This was the point that J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter author, was attempting to make according to classic feminism, when she was canceled for her insensitivity to transgenders. She made the controversial following statement earlier this year: “If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased.” I’m just saying that women’s rights can’t be human rights if there is no way to distinguish between men and women.
“Love is love” relates obviously to same-sex marriage. However, again how can there be same sex if sex is a social construct? Love can’t even be love, because love must mean whatever someone wants it to mean. This is the latest iteration of the world for the left’s value sign owner. Can he/she/it even claim the sign as his/her/its property? Sign person didn’t build it. Sign person doesn’t own it. And if it causes me psychological harm, then I’m entitled to destroy it, or at least sue for psychological damages, as a means of saving my life.
A world so lacking in certainty is left to proclaim inane statements like “love is love,” defining a word with the same word. Jerry Seinfeld makes light of this inanity in a comedic bit, when he says:
People like to say those things. “It is what it is.” You see, if you repeat a word twice in a sentence, you can say that with a lot of confidence. “Business is business.” “Rules are rules.” “Deal’s a deal.” “When we go in there, as long as we know what’s what and who’s who, whatever happens, happens, and it is what it is.”
People laugh, but they’re now laughing at themselves. If it’s funny though, then it’s funny, even if it’s you that’s you who’s a joke.
“Kindness is everything” comes from the most intolerant generation in the history of human kind. They invented ghosting their parents. They don’t want to be challenged for anything they say or do. They want total tolerance. This is the “kindness” of which they speak. They don’t mean, be kind to you. They mean being kind to them, tolerating them, is everything.
The Apostle Paul writes that love “is kind,” but he also writes that love “rejoiceth not in iniquity.” John writes in 2 John 1:6, “This is love, that we walk after his commandments.” When 1 Corinthians 13 says, “love is kind,” the Greek word for “kind” is chretos, which occurs seven times in the New Testament. The word pertains to moral goodness and in Romans 2:4, it is translated “goodness,” as in “the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance.” True kindness is doing what is absolute best for another person, like God does for us. That would mean rejecting the values of the leftist value sign, which contradicts the goodness of God, the holy, moral nature of the Good God.’https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/
If you by chance wake up on election day and go and vote for Sleepy Joe what kind of America will you get? ‘Those comforting themselves with the idea that a vote for Joe Biden is a “return to normalcy” are delusional. A vote for Joe Biden is a vote for an America where pro-life laws are overturned, religious liberty is destroyed, American power is used to bully other nations into accepting the LGBT agenda, abortion on demand and funded by the taxpayer is considered a human right, Christian adoption agencies are forced out of business if they refuse to place children with same-sex couples, and those with unwanted same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria are banned from getting the assistance they desperately desire. That would be Joe Biden’s America.’https://www.prophecynewswatch.com/article.cfm?recent_news_id=4308
Strange things are happening. ‘The meltdown of the left over the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg was immediate and predictable. Viral videos circulating on Twitter show young women in hysterics, shrieking at their phones — one girl screamed that she hates those who are trying to stop abortions, and that she wished she’d been aborted herself. Another woman, who howled F-bombs with impressive lung power, berated the Notorious RBG for not hanging on just a little bit longer. The sheer force of emotion was slightly unnerving.
The reaction is ongoing, and it is getting sicker and stranger. Take, for example, Jamie Smith, a “40-something attorney and mother who lives in a quiet neighborhood with a yard and a garage full of scooters and soccer balls.” Smith is a normal person, she says: “I often walk with my children to get ice cream and spend weekends hiking through a national park.” But despite all that, the death of Ruth Bader Ginbsurg rocked Smith to her core and, she writes in the Huffington Post, “pushed me to join the Satanic Temple.”
“I am not the type of person who would normally consider becoming a Satanist, but these are not normal times,” Smith writes. “Our democracy has become so fragile that the loss of one of the last guardians of common sense … has put our civil and reproductive rights in danger like never before. And, so, I have turned to Satanism.”
I realize that this sounds like the sort of thing the Babylon Bee would write about abortion-supporters (perhaps to parody how Christians see abortion activists sometimes), but it helps to remember that the Satanic Temple has been fighting for abortion for some years now (they recently raffled a free abortion and declared abortion a “religious ritual”). It’s almost as strange as the effort to have witches curse President Trump, reported by the Los Angeles Times.
According to Smith, the Satanic Temple is one of the last lines of defense against “theocracy” and the pro-life movement:
Members of the Satanic Temple do not believe in the supernatural or superstition. In the same way that some Unitarians and some Jews do not believe in God, Satanic Temple members do not worship Satan and most are atheists. They are not affiliated in any way with the Church of Satan. Instead, the Satanic Temple uses the devil as a symbol of rebellion.
Just like other faiths, the Satanic Temple has a code that their members believe in deeply and use to guide their lives. These Seven Fundamental Tenets include that “one should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason,” that “the struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions,” and that “one’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.”
Reading through the Seven Tenets, I was struck by how closely they aligned with the unwritten code I had used to try to guide my own life for several years. I realized, happily, that these were my people and that I had been a Satanist for several years without even knowing it. When Justice Ginsburg’s death suddenly made combating the threats to reproductive rights and a government free from religious interference more urgent, I knew it was time to join them and support their conceptual and legal battles.
In fact, it is the Satanic Temple’s attempts to defend the abortion industry that really appealed to Smith:
By pointing out instances where the government has favored Christian rhetoric ― and filing legal challenges to stop it ― the Satanic Temple has transformed belief into action and has demonstrated what freedom fighting truly looks like. The Satanic Temple hopes to appear before the Supreme Court in a case challenging a Missouri abortion law that requires those seeking to terminate their pregnancy to first receive materials asserting that their abortion would end the life of a separate, unique person. The temple argues that these materials violate the deeply held religious beliefs of one of its members regarding bodily autonomy and scientifically reasonable personal choice. The argument the Satanic Temple is using is the same one the Supreme Court effectively endorsed in the Hobby Lobby birth control case, for which Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissent ― that no one should have to follow a law that violates their deeply held religious beliefs. If a Christian should not have to do so based on their religion, a Satanist should not have to either. This is what equality under the law means on a fundamental level.
In short, Smith writes, she joined the Satanic Temple for her young daughters. She now fears that their “right” to get an abortion is under threat, and the Satanists are fighting like Hell to ensure that abortion remains legal for her and for them. “I believe that the Satanic Temple — and its members’ dedication to fighting for true freedom — represents our best, last defense against anti-choice lawmakers[.]”
As the American republic tears itself apart over the right to kill children in the womb, the masks are coming off. A pro-abortion mother is now willing to ally with the Satanic Temple because their willingness to defend feticide represents “true freedom” — and write a long article in the Huffington Post explaining why. She has realized that she was a Satanist for years now but just never knew it — because the Satanic Temple perfectly encapsulates her pro-abortion worldview.
Killing babies in the womb is murder and those who promote it and perform it are therefore murderers!
‘Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who defended what she argued was a constitutional “right” to partial-birth abortion, passed away on Friday night. She was 87 years old.
In the 2000 case of Stenberg vs. Carhart and the 2007 case of Gonzales vs. Carhart, Ginsburg made clear her view that the U.S. Constitution protected a “right” to abortion (as the court had ruled in the 1973 case of Roe vs. Wade and the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey) and that this right extended to the practice of partial-birth abortion.
The 2000 case of Stenberg vs. Carhart focused on a Nebraska state law that outlawed partial-birth abortions. At the time, there were also 29 other states that banned partial-birth abortions.
The court ruled 5-4 in Stenberg that Nebraska’s partial birth abortion law was unconstitutional. The five-justice majority included Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Chief Justice William Rehnquist dissented as did Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
In his dissenting opinion in Stenberg, Justice Thomas described the partial-birth abortion procedure which the court’s majority declared a constitutional right.
“Although there are variations, it is generally performed as follows: After dilating the cervix, the physician will grab the fetus by its feet and pull the fetal body out of the uterus into the vaginal cavity. At this stage of development, the head is the largest part of the body. Assuming the physician has performed the dilation procedure correctly, the head will be held inside the uterus by the women’s cervix. While the fetus is stuck in this position, dangling partly out of the woman’s body, and just a few inches from a completed birth, the physician uses an instrument such as a pair of scissors to tear or perforate the skull. The physician will then either crush the skull or will use a vacuum to remove the brain and other intracranial contents from the fetal skull, collapse the fetus’ head, and pull the fetus from the uterus.”
In her own opinion, concurring in the court’s decision to throw out the Nebraska law banning partial-birth abortion, Justice Ginsburg cited Parenthood vs. Casey and said that the partial-birth abortion ban “violates the Constitution.”
“A state regulation that ‘has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus’ violates the Constitution,” Ginsburg wrote in her Stenberg opinion.
Seven years later, in the case of Gonzales vs. Carhart, the court reviewed a federal ban on partial-birth abortion. This time the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the partial-birth abortion ban. Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissent in which Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer joined.
In this dissent, Ginsburg argued that it was “irrational” to ban partial-birth abortion.
“In sum,” wrote Ginsburg, “the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational.”
She then argued that the court’s opinion upholding the partial-birth abortion ban was part of an “effort to chip away” at the “right” to abortion.
whatyareckon 