Stop the Tyrants Part II

§B  Nebraska's Ban and the Constitution

The Stenberg ruling concerned a ban on the partial-birth abortion method that had been enacted by the Nebraska Legislature by a vote of 49 to 1. The reasons the Nebraska Legislature gave for passing this law were its concern for the lives of the unborn and the partially-born, its desire to preserve the integrity of the medical profession, and its wish to erect "a barrier to infanticide." Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban read as follows:

No partial-birth abortion shall be performed in this state, unless such procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother whose life is endangered by physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

The law's definition of "partial-birth abortion" was:

An abortion procedure in which the person performing the abortion partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child before killing the unborn child and completing the delivery. For purposes of this subdivision, the term partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child before killing the unborn child means deliberately and intentionally delivering into the vagina a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing a procedure that the person performing such procedure knows will kill the unborn child and does kill the unborn child.

Under normal circumstances, a humane and decent law like this would not surprise anyone. On the contrary, a State not passing such a law would be the cause of much shock and anger. But the legacy of Roe v. Wade made anti-barbarian statutes like this challengeable.

This law came under the scrutiny of the federal courts when Nebraska was sued for banning the partial-birth method of abortion. A most infamous abortionist, Dr. Leroy Carhart, who performs late abortions even when he is unsure if the fetus could survive outside the uterus, initiated this lawsuit. This case, Stenberg v. Carhart, made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. When the Court announced its decision in June of 2000, the majority ruled that Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion's was indeed unconstitutional. This majority consisted of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. Mr. Breyer wrote the majority's opinion; Stevens and Ginsburg wrote additional supporting opinions. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a seperate opinion concurring with the findings of the majority.

Not all of the Court's members agreed that Nebraska's ban was constitutionally illegitimate, thank goodness! Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas all wrote dissents. The Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, joined in their dissents. All Americans should be grateful for the decency and integrity these four judges displayed.

You can read the entirety of the Court's ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart on

The Stenberg majority justified its ruling by claiming that Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortions violated the "undue burden" standard created in the Casey decision: An abortion regulation imposes an "undue burden" if it has "the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman's choice."

Since Nebraska's law forbade only the breech-extraction form of dilation and extraction (D&X) -- leaving legal even the vertex-presentaion form of D&X -- it is hard to understand how it presents a "substantial obstacle" to any woman having a second- or even a third-trimester abortion. (The law had no effect on first-trimester abortions at all; it is simply impossible to use the partial-birth method this early in a pregnancy -- the fetus is too small and fragile.)

The majority defended its undue burden claim in two ways. First, they claimed that Nebraska's ban could, in addition to banning the partial-birth procedure, also forbid the most common form of second-trimester abortion: the late term "dilation and evacuation" (D&E;). Second, they claimed that any attempt to forbid an abortion procedure must include a "health exemption."

In making these two claims, the five members of the majority committed a number of acts of willful judicial misconduct. All so they can replace Nebraska's moral understanding of partial-birth abortion/infanticide withe their own. This is clear grounds for impeachment and removal from office for any judge, let alone a justice on the Supreme Court! If the phrase "government integrity" is to mean anything, then these five judges must go. The Petition for Removal from the Federal Judiciary refers to these improper acts as "callous disregard for the principle of democratic government." We will examine the majority's willful misconduct in Chapter 3: Integrity Down the Drain.

The Petition for Removal also demands the Stenberg majority's removal because, in striking down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban, they demonstrated a depraved indifference to human life that falls far below the proper standards of conduct for any governmental official. We will examine their depraved indifference in Chapter 4: Good-Bye to Decency.

The Removal petition further demands the removal of all judges on lower federal courts who have simularly interfered with democratic action with regard to partial-birth abortion. This sweeping clean of our federal judiciary is necessary and just: Any judge who considers partial-birth abortion to be a constitutional right must be reading into the Constution things that simply aren't there. It should go without saying that a Federal Constitution that protects the act of killing a baby while he is being born is a constitution that exists only in the deranged fantasies of some of our jurists! We will never have any true rule by law, let alone justice, while such men and women are on the bench.

Lastly, the Removal petition demands that "each and every member of Congress recognize that a failure to remove these cruel judges is... a violation of his own oath to support the constitution of the United States."In order to explain this demand made of all members of Congress, I will make three quotes from the Constitution of the United States:

From Article III, Section 1:

"Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior."[Emphasis added]

From Article VI:

"Senators and Representatives... and the Members of the several States Legislators, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall by bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

From Article II, Section 1:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, [the President] shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

From Article II, Section 4:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

These quotes should make five points clear to all citizens and government officials:

[1] Federal judges are not meant to keep their jobs when they have demonstrated bad behavior.

[2] Congress has the duty to hold all federal officials, including judges, to their proper place in the government. Congress should use its "power of the purse" and its impeachment power to keep officials from exceeding their public authority.

[3] Congress has the duty to remove officials who are guilty of willful misconduct, whether or not the misconduct involves abuse of power.

[4] The President has an obligation to defend the Constitution from the unethical actions of the judiciary.

[5] All the members of the fifty State Legislatures -- and all of our executive and judicial officers, both state and federal -- are violating their oaths of office when they allow unethical activist court rulings to be carried into effect.

For more than 35 years Congresses, Presidents, and State governments have failed in their duty to defend the Constitution by tolerating the Supreme Court's activism in regard to reproductive matters. This failure has led to the partial-birth infanticide, and to the court rulings that protect this evil practice. It is high time for this failure to end!

Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer have done more than promote infanticide as a legal right. These five judges have abused their judicial authority, and are guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors grave enough to threaten all government intergrity. An analysis of the Stenberg ruling will prove that this is so.

See the Table of Contents for the Introduction to Part II

The Stop the Tyrants Project [Page 12]: (Part II Introduction, Section B)
Page content and layout copyright © May 2001 by David A. Calvani