FamilyFoundationBlog.com

Annotations & Elucidations

The Sunday Times

I had all sorts of wit and wisdom to make your Sunday evening or Monday morning a true pleasure, but I was derailed. Hey, you got two gems prior to this! So, let me point out some of the links of interest below. First, scroll down to the National News section, where two Virginians get a national spotlight, including Senator Ken Cuccinelli (R-37, Fairfax). The Republican nominee for attorney general is highlighted in Human Events.

Meanwhile, the statewide press chronicles Democrat gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds’ leftist pandering on abortion “rights” and tax increases, all while his campaign is undergoing a major shakeup (according to the Washington Post). But don’t miss our friend Jim Hoeft’s analysis at Bearing Drift of Deeds’ and the Virginia Democrat Party’s attack on Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell. Apparently the Democrats have no problem with the barbaric infanticide that is partial birth abortion.

News:

Gubernatorial candidate McDonnell pitches his views to police (The Daily Press)

Deeds presses pro-choice argument (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot)

Deeds dodges call for taxes for roads (Washington Times)

Deeds would sign tax-increase bill (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Shake-up or Not, Deeds Campaign is Changing (Washington Post Virginia Politics Blog) 

Assembly candidates focus on economy (Charlottesville Daily Progress) 

Fewer Va. schools meet federal math, reading standard (Richmond Times-Dispatch) 

N.Va. Students Improve, But Schools Fall Short (Washington Post) 

E-mails from public overload Congress Web site (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

National News:

Cuccinelli’s AG Bid Solidifies Virginia Conservatives (Human Events)

Allen Tries to Shake Off the ‘Macaca’ Shadow (Washington Post)

School prayer charges stir protests (Washington Times)

Analysis:

DPVA supports partial birth abortion? (BearingDrift.com)

The next several posts will be statements from the major players who had significant roles in crafting the legislation that became Virginia’s law banning partial birth abortion/infanticide; in defending its constitutionality in the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals; and other organizations that play a leading role in defending unborn, innocent life in Virginia public policy.

In yesterday’s decision handed down by the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding Virginia’s ban on partial-birth abortion/infanticide, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson had this to say in his concurring opinion:

Perhaps fine art, great invention, sustained prosperity, or enhanced longevity mark the quality of civilized life. Perhaps, I say, because there must be something more. How a society treats its most vulnerable members may do more than grandiosity to shape its lasting worth. A partially born child is among the weakest, most helpless beings in our midst and on that account exerts a special claim on our protection. So we can talk at length about facial challenges and as-applied challenges, and “standard D&E” procedures and “intact D&E” procedures, and “anatomical landmarks,” and “disarticulation,” and “fetal demise.” And we can deploy this terminology to disguise what is happening, in the name of our founding document no less.

The future, however, will not be similarly misled. The fact is that we — civilized people — are retreating to the haven of our Constitution to justify dismembering a partly born child and crushing its skull. Surely centuries hence, people will look back on this gruesome practice done in the name of fundamental law by a society of high achievement. And they will shudder.

One can only pray that he is right.

The hearing in front of the full U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on the constitutionality of Virginia’s law banning partial birth abortion — or infanticide — was heard in front of a packed courtroom this morning, starting at 9:00 (see Richmond Times-Dispatch article). So packed, that several extra chairs were brought in and people still were standing, crowding each other along the wall. Several late arrivers were left to stand outside, with a couple trying to peek through the door window.

William Thro, Virginia’s former solicitor general, who has argued this case at each stage of appeal (see previous commentary that explains the case), argued for the commonwealth, although he recently accepted the job as university counsel at Christopher Newport University. He was bombarded with questions by judges Blane Michael and Diana Motz (see previous commentary). Those two were the majority on the three judge panel (see previous commentary) that heard the previous appeal of this case around this time last year (a federal district judge originally ruled the law unconstitutional). Judge Motz wrote the opinion (see previous commentary). Judge Roger Gregory joined them in adversarial questioning of Mr. Thro. There are 11 judges on the full court.

On the other hand, there seemed to be enough interest in sustaining the law from Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Chief Judge Karen Williams, Judge Robert King and perhaps Judge Steven Agee, especially as they questioned the attorney representing the pro-abortion appellees.

We’ll have a more detailed analysis later this afternoon. We are about to hear from Mr. Thro who will review the case to a luncheon sponsored by Americans United for Life.

For the opinion from the panel’s decision, which includes Judge Neimeyer’s dissent, click here.