Pro-life Leaders Condemning the PBA Ruling

List of pro-life leaders condemning the PBA Ruling; Shocking admissions; A Human Events ad…

1. This list of pro-life leaders who CONDEMN the PBA Ban and Ruling.
2. Shocking admissions from PBA ban supporters that it will not stop a single abortion.
3. Our 6-11-07 Open Letter in Human Events magazine exposing the PBA travesty.

1. Leaders Condemning the Partial-Birth Abortion Ruling:
Ambassador Alan Keyes, (30-sec clip)
Rev. Tom Euteneuer, Human Life Int'l
Judie Brown, American Life League
John Archibold, co-founder AUL & Nat'l RTL
Dr. Charles Rice, Notre Dame Law School
Dr. Patrick Johnston,
Jim Rudd, Covenant News
Cliff Zarsky, Corpus Christi RTL
Chris Mohr, Ohio RTL board member
Erik Whittington, Rock for Life
John Lofton, The American View
Eric Guttormson,
Brian Martin,
Jim Anderson,
Cal Zastrow, Michigan Citizens for Life
Judie Zabik, Michigan Personhood Leader
Matt Trewhella, Missionaries to the Preborn
Brannon Howse, Christian Worldview Net
David Brownlow, OR U.S. Senate Candidate
Keith Humphrey, Life Support
Louis Wein, former NYC Ass't Mayor
Steve Curtis, Frm. State Chair, CO. Rep. Party
Julie Niccum, Wisconsin Personhood Leader
Jo Scott, ProLife Colorado
Gino Geraci, Calvary Chapel South Denver
Bob Enyart, Denver Bible Church
Chuck Baldwin, Crossroad Baptist Church
Rev. C. Childress, LEARN, BlackGenocide
Eve Silver, Clear Research
Leslie Hanks, Colorado Right To Life
Flip Benham, Operation Rescue / OSA
Bob Dornan, 20-year U.S. Congressman
Nellie Gray, D.C. March for Life
Rohrbough, American Right to Life
Judge Roy Moore,

2. Criticism from the Above Leaders has Led to Admissions from PBA Ban Supporters:

Dr. James Dobson : "Ending partial-birth abortion… does not save a single human life." -Focus on the Family website, May 2007.

Thomas More Society's Pro-Life Law Center: special counsel Paul Linton authored amicus briefs to the U. S. Supreme Court in the partial-birth abortion cases, and said of the PBA ruling: "It's not going to stop any abortions as such," he said. "They're still going to take place by other means ."'s Bob Unruh wrote that there is "the fact that the legal [PBA] ruling, itself, does not and cannot be used to proscribe [prohibit] a single abortion… "

FRC in a Washington Post story : "Chuck Donovan, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, a Washington advocacy group allied with Dobson, said… "there are certainly a fair number of people, including in our own building , who think… that, practically, there may not be even one fewer abortion in the country as a result ." The Post quotes another source: "…the partial-birth abortion ban as a fundraising technique has brought in over a quarter of a billion dollars" for major antiabortion groups, "but the ban has no authority to prevent a single abortion , and pro-life donors were never told that…"

3. Human Events Magazine Open Letter

Supreme Court Actually Kept "Partial Birth" Abortion Legal

Pro-life Movement Makes False Claims About PBA Ruling

An Open Letter to Pro-lifers,

[As published in Human Events magazine, 6-11-07, signed by leaders of Colorado Right to Life, Human Life International, Operation Rescue/OSA, and the American Life League:]

We the undersigned grieve at the celebration by many Christian leaders of one of the most barbaric opinions ever issued by an American court. We plead with pro-lifers to go to to read the Gonzales v. Carhart ruling.

Pro-life organizations have applauded these "pro-life Justices" nominated to the court by our pro-life presidents, stating for example, "the Supreme Court has affirmed the value of human life." But actually, these Justices concur optimistically on page 30 that, "The medical profession [abortionists] may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus…" It is false to claim the Justices showed any concern for the child; the ruling's real concern is to improve the public-relations image of the abortionist (as we will show).

The Justices we've called "pro-life" did not "affirm" the life of the unborn but upheld a mere "regulatory" law " under the Commerce Clause" (p. 36). These Justices misrepre-sented as "pro-life" actually suggest other ways for abortionists to kill the fully intact, late-term child to comply with their regulation, such as " an injection that kills the fetus" (p. 34). Imagine the horror yet to come now that our greatest Christian leaders are will-ing to call good evil, and evil good. Throughout the ruling, Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito concur that both the partial-birth abortion (PBA) ban, and their ruling, allow the abortionist to deliver a late-term baby all the way up to the navel and then kill him (especially pp. 17-26). To actually violate this regulation "requires the fetus to be delivered 'untilany part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother'" (p. 17) as in a standard breech (feet-first) abortion.

The pro-life industry said, "thank God for this victory that affirms the value of human life, " but this vulgar ruling actually instructs on how to perform just another form of partial-birth abortion , just not "past the navel." And they celebrated this even though it affirms causing "the fetus to tear apart " (p. 4). The Justices build upon the late-term abortion procedure called dilation and evacuation, which this ruling repeatedly upholds as remaining legal, stating (p. 21) that "D&E will often involve a physician pulling a 'substantial portion' of a still living fetus, say, an arm or leg, into the [birth canal] prior to the death of the fetus." Then for the purpose of this current opinion, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, regarding a still living unborn child, ruled that (p. 22): " the removal of a small portion ['say, an arm or leg' ] of the fetus is not prohibited" and that's after the baby is pulled outside the mother as far as to his bellybutton (p. 22).

False Pro-Life Claims

The pro-life industry misled Christians claiming this ruling will "protect children." The court granted no authority to save the life of even a single child . The ruling indicates the abortionist can still legally perform a textbook partial-birth abortion, if for example the mother is over "dilate[d]" (p. 24) and the baby, by "inadvertence," is delivered up to the neck as in typical PBA. Then the abortionist can kill him by "intact D&E" (p. 24), i.e., by PBA . An abortionist only needs to maintain that his original " intent" was to deliver the baby up to the navel before killing him. "If a living fetus is delivered past the critical point [the bellybutton] by accident or inadvertence [and then killed] no crime has occurred" (p. 18 ).

Pro-lifers have donated millions being misled that this ban had the authority to save the lives of at least some unborn children. Some of the misrepresentation has been committed by members of the Evangelical Council For Financial Accountability which requires that, " There must be no material… exaggerations of fact." Online at, we document pro-life organizations misrepresenting of this vicious ruling including claims that it outlaws 3rd-trimester abortions, yet the court explicitly stated the PBA ban "does not on its face impose a substantial obstacle" to "late-term" abortion (p. 26 ). And since this ban cannot prevent a single abortion, of course, it imposes no actual obstacle, and neither does it "protect children," a horribly false claim.

There is nothing new with this ruling that is good, no precedent, no truth, no defense of life, only brutality and death. And yes, there is "no health exception," not as a pro-life legal victory, but because the Justices ruled you can still kill any such unwanted baby in countless ways, including by a PBA.

More Wicked than Roe

When pressed, pro-life leaders in private admit to us this ban had no authority to save lives, but that it kept "the issue in the news." Others misrepresent ruling excerpts that sound encouraging, e.g., "The government may… show its profound respect for the life within the woman" (p. 27). This is just lip-service that the Justices reprint from the Casey ruling of 15 years earlier, but this ruling prohibits such respect.

This wicked ruling states it prefers the word "fetus" to "child," and it trivializes the dreadful account (pp. 8-9) of killing a child whose arms and legs are wiggling outside the mother, callously comparing our revulsion to our reaction to any medical procedure, like being squeamish over getting stitches. The Justices quote an abortionist: "For the staff to have to deal with a fetus that has 'some viability to it, some movement of limbs, [is] always a difficult situation.'" With grave wickedness, the "pro-life Justices" observe ( p. 29): "Any number of patients facing imminent surgical procedures would prefer not to hear all details, lest the usual anxiety… become the more intense. This is likely the case with the abortion procedures here in issue." The court, including Roberts and Alito, trivializes the grotesque particulars of causing " the fetus to tear apart" (p. 4) by comparing that to getting queasy by talk of incisions, and the pro-life industry "applauds the court." We should be appalled.

As a fundraiser, PBA brought hundreds of millions to the pro-life industry, as a ban, it lacks the authority to save even a single child. During the long PBA distraction from the actual war, America killed 20 million children. And recently, a major pro-life fundraising firm told Colorado Right To Life, "The PBA script gets the best results."

The pro-life industry should stop foisting its moral relativism onto the church, and should correct their falsehood that this gruesome ruling will "protect children." For, serious pro-lifers are already looking elsewhere for the strategy and leadership to end legal abortion.

This wicked ruling is not a ban, but a partial-birth abortion manual. These "pro-life Justices" give instructions on what can be called Navel Birth Abortion, only a four-inch variation from a textbook PBA. Steps from the ruling:
1) The abortionist may partially deliver the unborn child all the way to the bellybutton, but not "past the navel."
2) Then " a leg might be ripped off," etc. to "kill the fetus."

3) Or alternatively, "find… less shocking methods to abort…"

What a mockery of the goodwill of rank-and-file pro-lifers.

The Justices raise the likelihood that with this ruling, the fetus now faces greater brutality. The Justices note the objection (p. 30) "that the standard D&E is in some respects as brutal, if not more, than the intact D&E [PBA]." That is, standard late-term D&E abortion appears to be more cruel than PBA. And the Justices do not rebut that claim . Their interest is not to protect children, but to promote the "integrity and ethics" (p. 27) of the medical and abortion industries and to improve "the public's perception" (p. 30) of late-term abortion.

Incrementalism is fine; compromised incrementalism violates God's enduring command, Do not murder .

The court ruling celebrated by the pro-life industry results in the legal preference for "reasonable alternative pro-cedures " ( p. 33) for killing "late-term" children including "a leg might be ripped off the fetus " and " ripping it apart ," (pp. 4, 6). And the pro-life industry "applauds the court." We rebuke them.

– Brian Rohrbough, Colo. Right to Life
– Rev. Tom Euteneuer, Human Life Int'l
– Flip Benham, Operation Rescue/OSA
– Dr. Pat Johnston, ProLife Physicians
– Bob Enyart, Denver Bible Church
– Judie Brown, American Life League


● see which pro-life groups celebrate the ruling, and the leaders who condemn the ruling
● read the signers' Open Letter to Dr. James Dobson (it's devastating)
● learn to recognize moral relativism in the pro-life industry, which is called legal positivism
● sign the "40 Years" pledge to never compromise on God's enduring command: Do not murder.