Jakubczyk on Life

Disasters at the Appeals Courts

If there was ever a reason to thank God and the president for the elevation of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, the two decisions handed down by the 2nd and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are exhibits 1 and 2. In those two opinions the respective courts both struck down the partial birth abortion ban passed by the Congress and supported overwhelmingly by the American people.

The 9th Circuit even had the gaul to claim it considered the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, which the court sent back to the lower court with instructions to determine if it could be held constitutional. The 9th circuit decision explained in detail the procedure. You can read the entire opinion if you dare.


Here is an excerpt to show you the court knows the process destroys a human being

The second step of the procedure, the evacuation phase, is when the two forms of D&E become different. When performing a non-intact D&E, the doctor, under ultrasound guidance, grasps a fetal extremity with forceps and attempts to bring the fetus through the cervix. At this point, the fetus will ordinarily disarticulate, or break apart, because of traction from the cervix, and the doctor must return the instrument to make multiple passes into the uterus to remove the remaining parts of the fetus, causing further disarticulation. To complete the removal process, the doctor evacuates the placenta and any remaining material using a suction tube, or cannula, and a spoon-like instrument called a curette.

In an intact D&E, the doctor, rather than using multiple passes of the forceps
to disarticulate and remove the fetus, removes the fetus in one pass, without any
disarticulation occurring (i.e., the fetus is "intact"). An intact D&E proceeds in
one of two ways, depending on the position of the fetus in the uterus. If the fetus
presents head first (a vertex presentation), the doctor first collapses the head, either by compressing the skull with forceps or by inserting surgical scissors into the base of the skull and draining its contents. The doctor then uses forceps to grasp the fetus and extracts it through the cervix.5 If the fetus presents feet first (a breech presentation), the doctor begins by grasping a lower extremity and pulling it through the cervix, at which point the head typically becomes lodged in the cervix. When that occurs, the doctor can either collapse the head and then remove the fetus or continue pulling to disarticulate at the neck. (If the doctor uses the latter option, he will have to use at least one more pass of the forceps to remove the part of the fetus that remains, and the procedure is not considered an intact D&E.)

As the district court found, some doctors prefer to use the intact form of D&E, whenever possible, because they believe it offers numerous safety advantages over non-intact D&E. As the district court also found, intact D&E may be significantly safer than other D&E procedures because it involves fewer 6 The primary alternative to the D&E procedures is induction, which comprises approximately 5 percent of abortions performed between weeks fourteen and twenty and 15 percent of abortions performed after the twentieth week. Many doctors consider inductions less safe than D&Es. When employing this procedure, the doctor starts an IV and uses a prostaglandin suppository (or a saline injection) to induce uterine contractions and labor. The entire process takes between eight and seventy-two hours, with most inductions concluding within twenty-four hours. Some inductions will not completely expel the fetus, requiring the doctor to perform a D&E to finish the procedure. Although a D&E may be performed in an outpatient setting, a woman choosing to undergo induction must be admitted to a hospital. Planned Parenhood v. Gonzales at 5,6.

This opinion discusses quite calmly the extent to which the killing of children is treated in this country. It takes for granted that women may kill their babies through the abortion technique. It finds the law unconstitutional because it presents an undue burden for women who want to kill their babies. It finds the language of the statute vague, claiming that the hitman from Planned Parenthood (oops excuse me, the abortionist) may not know that what he is doing would violate the law. And then there is the imfamous "health" exception that was lacking in the language of the law. After all, when the baby is almost out of the birth canal and presenting to be born, there just may be a reason to stick some scissors into the base of the skull to protect the mother's health.

The more I think about it, the more disgusted I get.

posted by Jakubczyk on Life @ 6:52 PM