Ron Sachs/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

In 2006, attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch joined other former U.S. attorneys in an amicus brief in a case before the Supreme Court that maintained the federal law against partial-birth abortion was unconstitutional because the term “living fetus” was too vague for those whose job it was to obey and enforce the ban.

As CNSNews.com reports, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003 as follows:

(1) the term partial-birth abortion means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion (A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and (B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.

Lynch and fellow U.S. attorneys argued in their amicus brief in Gonzales v. Carhartthat the definition regarding what was banned lacked “clarity.” For example, the phrase “living fetus,” they said, was “hopelessly vague as a legal proscription.”

Written by DR. SUSAN BERRY- Breitbart
Full report at Breitbart

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s