ACLJ Asks Federal Appeals Court on Behalf of Members of Congress to Uphold Constitutionality of National Ban on Partial-Birth Abortion.

WASHINGTON -- The American Center for Law and Justice, which specializes in constitutional law, announced today it has filed an amicus brief on behalf of members of Congress asking a federal appeals court in St. Louis, Missouri to overturn a decision by a federal district court in Nebraska - 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 Eighth Circuit and supports the position of the Department of Justice that the ban is constitutional.

"Partial-birth abortion represents the beachhead of abortion's assault on postnatal life, the bridge between abortion and infanticide," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, which is filing briefs in support of the ban in all three cases. "We are supporting the Department of Justice in arguing that Congress not only acted properly in passing the ban, but that such a ban is needed to ensure that partially born children receive the same constitutional rights afforded to all persons. It is a privilege to represent members of Congress who co-sponsored the ban. While this case is now before the appeals court, it's clear that it will eventually end up before the Supreme Court. We will fight to protect the life of the partially born child every step of the way."

The ACLJ represents itself and 26 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. 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. 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. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), 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).

The brief contends that the government has a "vital and compelling interest" in preventing the spread of the practice of abortion into infanticide. "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."

(http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/041209_Carhart_v_Ashcroft_8th_Cir_ Amicus_Brief.pdf) (Due to its length, this URL may need to be copied/pasted into your Internet browser's address field. Remove the extra space if one exists.)

The ACLJ brief states: "The central premise of the federal partial-birth statute is the defense of the border against the encroachment of abortion into infanticide. What matters most to this specific defense is the protection of all children who, while still alive and therefore capable of being protected, break the plane that currently marks the dividing line between non-personhood and personhood, between abortion and infanticide. The label the abortionist uses for his lethal procedure is irrelevant. The reason for using this macabre method of killing is irrelevant. What is crucial is maintenance of the bulwark against 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. "The creation of an exception to the Fifth Amendment which would deny protection to partially born children would represent a backward step to outmoded and unworkable legal fictions, and lead to disrespect for the law."

The brief 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 8th Circuit. The ACLJ will file amicus briefs in support of the ban in the two other cases now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits.

The American Center for Law and Justice, which specializes in constitutional law, is based in Washington, D.C. and is online at www.aclj.org.