Update, 12/8 3:30 pm: Rep. Craig, the author of the bill being discussed here, has responded with a legislative memo of his own on why a life-of-the-mother exception in a partial-birth abortion ban is morally unacceptable, medically dangerous and legally unnecessary. Read Rep. Craig’s memo in its entirety here [PDF]. Read Pro-Life Wisconsin’s position on why abortion cannot be permitted in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother here.
Excerpt from Rep. Craig’s memo:
Legal opinions predictably vary on the legal need for a “life of the mother” exception in this bill; however, it is clear that the pro-life and medical communities understand that this 2-3 day procedure is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother. In my communications with attorneys, I found that including the life of the mother exception is, at best, unneeded and omitting it is, at worst, uncharted legal territory. The U.S. Supreme Court did not address whether a “life of the mother exception” was constitutionally necessary in Gonzales v. Carhart. Speaking to the omission of a health of the mother exception in the federal ban, Justice Kennedy stated:
The conclusion that the Act does not impose an undue burden is supported by other considerations. Alternatives are available to the prohibited procedure. As we have noted, the Act does not proscribe D & E. One District Court found D & E to have extremely low rates of medical complications. Planned Parenthood, supra, at 1000, 112 S.Ct. 2791. Another indicated D & E was “generally the safest method of abortion during the second trimester.” Carhart, 331 F.Supp.2d, at 1031; see also Nat. Abortion Federation, supra, at 467-468 (explaining that “[e]xperts testifying for both sides” agreed D & E was safe). In addition the Act’s prohibition only applies to the delivery of “a living fetus.” 18 U.S.C. § 1531(b)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). If the intact D & E procedure is truly necessary in some circumstances, it appears likely an injection that kills the fetus is an alternative under the Act that allows the doctor to perform the procedure. 2
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
12/7 Sadly, not all pro-life organizations are 100% pro-life, as the memo below shows.
This past Monday, Wisconsin Right to Life issued a memo to all Wisconsin legislators about a proposed partial-birth abortion ban. As it is written now, the proposed partial birth abortion ban would not allow for abortions in the exceptions cases (rape, incest, fetal abnormality, or life of the mother.)
TO: State Legislators
FROM: Susan Armacost, Legislative Director Wisconsin Right to Life
RE: LRB-3150/1, as currently worded, has constitutional problems
Rep. David Craig is circulating LRB-3150/1, a bill to ban partial-birth abortions, for co-sponsors. This proposal has serious constitutional problems because it does not have a life of the mother exception.
Wisconsin Right to Life refers you to 2007-2008 AB 710, passed by the Assembly by a 59-38 vote, which contains the virtually exact wording of the federal partial-birth abortion ban including a life of the mother exception. The federal law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007. Wisconsin Right to Life and its attorney have communicated this problem to Rep. Craig.
Should you decide to co-sponsor Rep. Craig’s measure, please know that it must be amended to add a life of the mother exception to meet constitutional standards.
- From the Badger Catholic blog.
We are dismayed that a fellow pro-life organization, located in our state, is advocating for abortion in this case.
On the flipside, we are encouraged to see the debate and consideration surrounding the Wisconsin Personhood Amendment, which would change the Wisconsin Constitution so that the right to life is applied to all people, every person, at any stage of development. The political pandering and sacrificing of the most vulnerable — those conceived in rape, those diagnosed with a fetal abnormality, those who are perceived to be a threat to their mother’s life — is not an issue with personhood. With personhood, you cannot say, “Babies conceived in rape or those who are threat to their mother’s life are not persons and can be killed.”
Perhaps something has sunk in — that abortion does kill a living, breathing human being?
