Rift opens in Christian Right

Some points the article completely missed:

1) Partial Birth Abortion is not the same as late-term abortion. There are at least 10 ways to perform late-term abortions. The PBA Ban makes only one of them illegal, which means any doctors who want to abort an at-term baby can just use another method (the ruling makes note of this, and encourages them to do so).

2) The ruling itself indicates that the only reason why the ban is considered Constitutional is because it "does not on its face impose a substantial obstacle" to a late term abortion. In fact, the ruling says that if the law (or any law) DID pose a substantial obstacle to any woman getting a late-term abortion on demand, then it would be unconstitutional.

Basically, the ruling was a stunning defeat for anyone who hopes to end abortion in the next 50 years.

Also note that Colorado Right to Life spoke to Focus privately before having to go to the next step - educating the public and asking the public to ask Focus to do the right thing.

Anyone who wants to read the whole letter can see it at www.coloradorighttolife.org, as well as a complete analysis of what the ruling does, as well as a link to the full 74-page text of the ruling on the Supreme Court website, which no one defending the ruling will link to (which should tell you they're hiding something).

Please also see my blog -- www.lookontherightside.blogspot.com -- for my more complete take on the ruling.

Ed Hanks

I understand why many pro-lifers are upset about attempts to ban partial birth abortion as well as with the ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart, but while they make take issue with the wording of the Supreme Court decision, I take issue with the wording of their letter.

Expressing disapproval over the decision and explaining why is one thing, but writing what amounts to a vicious attack on Dr. James Dobson and everyone who sees some good in the decision is another.

Furthermore, the letter fails to acknowledge several key points. In its very dangerous implication that the originalist Justices on the Supreme Court are just as bad as the pro-abortion Justices, it neglects to inform us that the decision in Gonzales was written by the pro-abortion judicial activist Justice Anthony Kennedy; it was not written by the Justices who are thought to be more sympathetic toward the pro-life cause. I don't know why Justice Kennedy was allowed to write the decision, but I have a feeling that he threatened to join the pro-abortion side in the decision if he was not allowed to do so.

The letter also ignores the outrageous dissent written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If Justice Kennedy had gone the other way, it probably would have been the extremely pro-abortion Justice Ginsburg who wrote the opinion for the majority.

It is dangerous to ignore these points because to so do suggests that there is no difference between, for example, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Ginsburg. Justice Thomas, in a separate concurrence, wrote the following:

"I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973) , has no basis in the Constitution."

The writers of the letter seem to want to have five ideologically pure pro-life Justices on the Supreme Court who will strike down Roe v. Wade not because it is bad law, but because they are pro-lifers. This is never going to happen. Right now we have four originalist Justices on the Supreme Court who reject Roe on legal grounds. All we need is one more, and at this point in time we need to be rational and stand against any politician who supports pro-abortion judicial activists.