Solicitor General William Thro told the three-judge panel that the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the federal ban on partial birth abortion should remove any doubt about the constitutionality of Virginia’s Partial Birth Infanticide Act. But, he was stopped in his tracks by Judge Blane Michael, who said, “That doesn’t really quite get you home, Mr. Thro.” Victoria Cobb with the Family Foundation says that skepticism is unnecessary.
“I think there’s no question that it is always a matter of what court and what set of judges you come before, so we are concerned that there’s a possibility that our statute might not be upheld, even though this case is so cut and dry.”
The wording of Virginia’s law mirrors the federal ban of the gruesome procedure.
“That was the argument of the Attorneys General office that in fact this is largely identical to the decision that was made by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the federal law.”
The cynical judges on the 4th Circuit have Mailee Smith with Americans United for Life thinking one thing: judicial activism.
“If the 4th Circuit does not uphold Virginia’s partial birth abortion ban, I would cite it as an instance of judicial activism.”
She calls the proceeding over Virginia’s ban a stall tactic.
“The pro-abortion side is trying to re-litigate issues that the Supreme Court has already decided.”
One judge on the panel, who previously voted to keep Virginia’s ban, was appointed by former President George H.W. Bush. The two other judges who struck down the ban in 2005 were Bill Clinton appointees.
