NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Kentucky to appeal judge’s ruling striking down ban on the dismemberment of living unborn babies

by | May 13, 2019

By Dave Andrusko

No sooner had U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley struck down Kentucky’s “House Bill 454” ban against dismemberment abortion than Elizabeth Kuhn, communications director for Gov. Matt Bevin, said Friday evening that the administration intends to appeal.

“We profoundly disagree with the court’s decision and will take this case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, to protect unborn children from being dismembered limb by limb while still alive,” she said in a statement.

The law had overwhelming legislative support. The vote in the Senate was 31-5, the vote in the House was an equally one-sided 71-11.

The ACLU celebrated McKinley’s decision. “Today’s ruling affirms that health, not politics, will guide important medical decisions about pregnancy,” said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. The ACLU represented the state’s lone abortion clinic, EMW Women’s Surgical Center.

Judge McKinley wrote, “If the Act goes into effect, standard D&E abortions will no longer be performed in the Commonwealth due to ethical and legal concerns regarding compliance with the law.” Judge McKinley heard the case without a jury last November.

As NRL News Today reported last November Kolbi-Molinas told Judge McKinley that tearing living unborn babies limb from limb well into the second trimester is safe, safe, safe—for the mother.

All the law requires is that the abortionist first inject the living unborn child with potassium chloride. But that is unconscionable—“an unconstitutional barrier for women seeking abortions after the 14th week of pregnancy,” as the Louisville Courier Journal’s Deborah Yetter paraphrased the ACLU’s argument.

That’s one view.

The other view saw the living unborn child as more than the object of the abortionist’s tool whose removal was more than “exercising” a right. That view said, “Think what you are doing—to the helpless child, to her mother, to the profession of medicine.”

But, as always, the gory, brutal, inhumane dismemberment of living unborn babies was brushed off by the ACLU lawyer with euphemisms intended to make unspeakable acceptable. Yetter writes that Kolbi-Molinas

also said that supporters of the law will rely on extreme language to make their case.

“This court is going to hear the same inflammatory rhetoric and non-medical terminology,” she said.

What is a non-inflammatory description of an act where an abortionist continually reaches into the mother’s womb with a variety of sharp-edged metal clamps and tools, yanking off parts of the child and pulling them out, piece by piece, and placed in a tray?

According to Yetter’s non-inflammatory story, “The method involves dilating the patient’s cervix and removing the contents of the uterus with forceps.”

“Removing the contents of the uterus”…. That’s the non-inflammatory view of the ACLU which typically is not the least bit shy about using incendiary language when it fights for its clients.

Yetter concludes her story.

As NRL News Today has reported a coalition of 21 states has asked the Supreme Court to review and uphold Alabama’s dismemberment ban, SB 363.

Categories: Judicial