Bob Enyart interviews Rusty Thomas, the national director of Operation Rescue/Operation Save America, about yesterday's rally in Montgomery Alabama and the hearing and the effort to again kick off the Alabama Supreme Court its chief justice Judge Roy Moore.
* A Thumbnail Sketch of the Alabama Matter: From AL.com by Hannah Ford, beginning prior to Obergefell...
The Alabama Supreme Court declared that it is perfectly constitutional for the State of Alabama to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and ordered Alabama probate judges not to issue marriage licenses in conflict with Alabama law. A short time later, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court of the United States ordered four States, not including Alabama, to remove the gender requirement from marriage. ...
The Alabama Supreme Court requested input from the parties in their marriage case on how Obergefell should affect their "existing orders." One thing the Alabama Supreme Court did not do was lift its injunction banning probate judges from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That injunction was still in place and remains in place to this day...
Six months went by while a majority on the state Court refused to make a decision. Meanwhile, confusion reigned among probate judges; some were issuing marriage licenses, others weren't. In the midst of that legal chaos, Chief Justice Moore issued a factual administrative order clarifying that the injunction remained in effect until the state Supreme Court ruled otherwise.
Those are the steps that led to yesterday's hearing in the ongoing persecution of Judge Roy Moore by those who lust for all men to rebel against God.
* From BEL's Interview with the Judge: Copied from kgov.com/roy-moore:
* The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Fiasco: The heroic former chief justice of the Alabama State Supreme Court today reversed his previous opinion on the recent partial-birth abortion ruling! Acknowledging that he had previously accepted the praise of the ruling from others, Judge Roy Moore now urges Christians to read the Gonzales v. Carhart opinion for themselves, and he called it "atrocious!" Judge Moore also said, "We have put the rule of man above the rule of law," and agreed with Bob Enyart that no judge should uphold or follow a precedent that authorizes the intentional killing of an innocent child. This of course contrasts with Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family who defends Judge Samuel Alito who ruled to keep legal partial-birth abortion in New Jersey.
PBA Ruling Excerpts: From the official online text, at supremecourt.gov, of their Gonzales v. Carhart opinion, Justices Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito agree, as:
- on pages 21-22, regarding a living child that, "the removal of a small portion ['say, an arm or leg,'] of the fetus is not prohibited."
- on page 17, that to actually violate this regulation, "requires the fetus to be delivered 'until… any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother.'"
- however, on page 18, "If a living fetus is delivered past the critical point [the bellybutton] by accident or inadvertence [and then killed by the abortionist performing a textbook partial-birth abortion, then] no crime has occurred,"
- and on page 24 (regarding a situation in which the abortionist had prepared the mother with laminaria to open the cervix), there would be no violation for performing an actual partial-birth abortion, as the justices suggest, if the mother happened to be over "dilate[d]."
- on page 30, the justices hope that abortionists, "may find different and less shocking methods to abort [kill] the fetus..."
- while on page 33, speaking of killing "late-term" children, these justices say that abortionists should use "reasonable alternative procedures"
- such as, on pages 4-6, by their own descriptions of methods to kill the baby, that are still "legal", include "ripping it apart," "dismemberment," "a leg might be ripped off the fetus," "friction causes the fetus to tear apart," "10 to 15 passes with the forceps," "evacuating the fetus piece by piece."
- on page 34, the Justices actually suggest other ways for an abortionist to kill the same, late-term fully-intact child, such as "an injection that kills the fetus is an alternative..."
- and on page 36, this Republican majority says that the authority for this "regulation," comes from "the Commerce Clause," as though children were inventory or a crop to be harvested.
Thus pro-life leaders who initially praised this opinion later condemned it as immoral (see below) for it is a virtual late-term abortion manual, making the Gonzales v. Carhart PBA ruling more brutally wicked than Roe v. Wade itself.
* Excerpts from the Judge on the PBA Ban Fiasco:
"You know, things aren't always as they seem. And when this ruling came out, many praised the ruling; in fact I was one of them. I had not fully read the ruling... But then when you read the Carhart opinion, you realize what they have done is atrocious."
Judge Moore quoting the Gonzales ruling itself: "In addition, if intact D&E is truly necessary in some circumstances, a prior injection to kill the fetus allows the doctor to perform the procedure given that the act's prohibition only applies to the delivery of a living fetus."
"When I heard someone say "This opinion does not save a single human life", they are correct." [Note: That "someone" was Dr. James Dobson.]
"It actually sets another bad precedent if you will. It sets a precedent in 2007 of how you can take life. And that's just bad."
"We have put the rule of man above the rule of law."
"We've got judges across our country [and] in Colorado no doubt, that are eliminating any acknowledgment of a sovereign God from public view..."
"I likened this Carhart opinion, to... just like in Germany, a court in Germany, during the Holocaust coming out and saying, The Congress has just passed a rule that we couldn't gas these Jews but it certainly allows us to put them in a deep ditch and cover them with dirt while they are still breathing. You see, that is how atrocious this Carhart opinion is. It says you can still kill them, you just have to do it a different way. Now if anybody doesn't believe that that is what this opinion says, I invite them to read it. ... You have just got to read the opinion."
"I've never seen a court so apologetic to abortionists... that is very wrong."
"Well, we all stand in need of some correction. And I can admit I was too, I needed that, I spoke too quickly. But you know, all you have to do is read the opinion."
"In the 1700s precedent was defined as precedent as long as it didn't conflict with reason, logic or the law of God."
Listen to the full interview or see the full transcript over at kgov.com/roy-moore.