Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 75

Thread: US Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Partial Birth Abortion

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfield County, CT
    Posts
    6,870
    Post Thanks / Like

    US Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Partial Birth Abortion

    [B]Top court upholds ban on abortion procedure[/B]

    [B]Partial birth abortions at issue; first time justices ban specific procedure[/B]

    WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

    The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

    The opponents of the act “have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

    The decision pitted the court’s conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush’s two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.

    Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

    It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how — not whether — to perform an abortion.

    Abortion rights groups have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although government lawyers and others who favor the ban said there are alternate, more widely used procedures that remain legal.

    Action at state level likely
    The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.

    “I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation’s laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life,” said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

    Said Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America: “This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women’s health and safety. ... This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them.” She had argued that point before the justices.

    More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Tuesday’s ruling.

    Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an impermissible restriction on a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

    The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.

    “Today’s decision is alarming,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling “refuses to take ... seriously” previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

    Ginsburg said the latest decision “tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.”

    She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

    [B]Skull destroyed in procedure[/B]
    The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman’s uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

    Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method — dismembering the fetus in the uterus — is available and, indeed, much more common.

    In 2000, the court with key differences in its membership struck down a state ban on partial-birth abortions. Writing for a 5-4 majority at that time, Breyer said the law imposed an undue burden on a woman’s right to make an abortion decision.

    The Republican-controlled Congress responded in 2003 by passing a federal law that asserted the procedure is gruesome, inhumane and never medically necessary to preserve a woman’s health. That statement was designed to overcome the health exception to restrictions that the court has demanded in abortion cases.

    But federal judges in California, Nebraska and New York said the law was unconstitutional, and three appellate courts agreed. The Supreme Court accepted appeals from California and Nebraska, setting up Wednesday’s ruling.

    [B]More from majority ruling[/B]
    Kennedy acknowledged continuing disagreement about the procedure within the medical community. In the past, courts have cited that uncertainty as a reason to allow the disputed procedure.

    But Kennedy said that “the law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice.”

    He said the more common abortion method, involving dismemberment, is beyond the reach of the federal ban.

    While the court upheld the law against a broad attack on its constitutionality, Kennedy said the court could entertain a challenge in which a doctor found it necessary to perform the banned procedure on a patient suffering certain medical complications.

    Doctors most often refer to the procedure as a dilation and extraction or an intact dilation and evacuation abortion.

    The law allows the procedure to be performed when a woman’s life is in jeopardy.

    The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.

    [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18174245/[/url]

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Phoenixx][B]Top court upholds ban on abortion procedure[/B]

    [B]Partial birth abortions at issue; first time justices ban specific procedure[/B]

    WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

    The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

    The opponents of the act “have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

    The decision pitted the court’s conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush’s two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.

    Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

    It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how — not whether — to perform an abortion.

    Abortion rights groups have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although government lawyers and others who favor the ban said there are alternate, more widely used procedures that remain legal.

    Action at state level likely
    The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.

    “I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation’s laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life,” said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

    Said Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America: “This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women’s health and safety. ... This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them.” She had argued that point before the justices.

    More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Tuesday’s ruling.

    Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an impermissible restriction on a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

    The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.

    “Today’s decision is alarming,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling “refuses to take ... seriously” previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

    Ginsburg said the latest decision “tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.”

    She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

    [B]Skull destroyed in procedure[/B]
    The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman’s uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

    Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method — dismembering the fetus in the uterus — is available and, indeed, much more common.

    In 2000, the court with key differences in its membership struck down a state ban on partial-birth abortions. Writing for a 5-4 majority at that time, Breyer said the law imposed an undue burden on a woman’s right to make an abortion decision.

    The Republican-controlled Congress responded in 2003 by passing a federal law that asserted the procedure is gruesome, inhumane and never medically necessary to preserve a woman’s health. That statement was designed to overcome the health exception to restrictions that the court has demanded in abortion cases.

    But federal judges in California, Nebraska and New York said the law was unconstitutional, and three appellate courts agreed. The Supreme Court accepted appeals from California and Nebraska, setting up Wednesday’s ruling.

    [B]More from majority ruling[/B]
    Kennedy acknowledged continuing disagreement about the procedure within the medical community. In the past, courts have cited that uncertainty as a reason to allow the disputed procedure.

    But Kennedy said that “the law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice.”

    He said the more common abortion method, involving dismemberment, is beyond the reach of the federal ban.

    While the court upheld the law against a broad attack on its constitutionality, Kennedy said the court could entertain a challenge in which a doctor found it necessary to perform the banned procedure on a patient suffering certain medical complications.

    Doctors most often refer to the procedure as a dilation and extraction or an intact dilation and evacuation abortion.

    The law allows the procedure to be performed when a woman’s life is in jeopardy.

    The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.

    [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18174245/[/url][/QUOTE]


    Ah, Alito and Roberts...got to love em! One more sane jurist on this court is all we need! This is great.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    i can live with no abortions after 12 weeks... if there's a skull to crush it's closer to a human than not.

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    1 for humanity! Figure this women make mistakes. Baby Pays! No I am not talking about rape or uncest!

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,278
    Post Thanks / Like
    i'm a old fashion coat hanger guy myself.... :yes:

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,374
    Post Thanks / Like

    Barack's statement

    [QUOTE]I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women. [/QUOTE]


    [url]http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CZsK[/url]

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wonder how those so happy on this board would feel if their wife or daughter was in the second trimester and their life was in jeopardy from the pregnancy but they couldn't have a legal abortion.

    There should be an exception when the health of the mother is at risk.

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]I wonder how those so happy on this board would feel if their wife or daughter was in the second trimester and their life was in jeopardy from the pregnancy but they couldn't have a legal abortion.

    There should be an exception when the health of the mother is at risk.[/QUOTE]


    I totally agree with you!

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    Terrible ruling. Abortion should not be a political issue. Government is getting bigger and bigger by the day.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,374
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly]Terrible ruling. Abortion should not be a political issue. Government is getting bigger and bigger by the day.[/QUOTE]

    I agree. War Czar, next up, Abortion Czar

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly]Terrible ruling. Abortion should not be a political issue. Government is getting bigger and bigger by the day.[/QUOTE]


    I agree it was a terrible ruling but I think people do have a right to express their views in the political arena.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfield County, CT
    Posts
    6,870
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]I wonder how those so happy on this board would feel if their wife or daughter was in the second trimester and their life was in jeopardy from the pregnancy but they couldn't have a legal abortion.

    There should be an exception when the health of the mother is at risk.[/QUOTE]

    There is. It might be helpful to read the WHOLE article before reflexively responding.
    You even used the term "life in jeopardy"..same as the article you didn't finish reading...or did you just read the headline?

    [B][I]The law allows the procedure to be performed when a woman’s life is in jeopardy[/I].[/B]

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Phoenixx]There is. It might be helpful to read the WHOLE article before reflexively responding.
    You even used the term "life in jeopardy"..same as the article you didn't finish reading...or did you just read the headline?

    [B][I]The law allows the procedure to be performed when a woman’s life is in jeopardy[/I].[/B][/QUOTE]

    This is sitting right in the middle of the article.

    [QUOTE][B]The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman’s health, Kennedy said. “The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice,” he wrote in the majority opinion. [/B] [/QUOTE]
    [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18174245/[/url]

  14. #14
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,703
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is a difference between "save the life" and "health endangered", and that is what this ruling is part of.

    It does NOT allow it in cases of "Health", but does in cased of "Life". And likely for a very good reason.....many an MD would perform one on the basis of "Health" on very questionable grounds. Point is, they do not want Abortions done under the "Health" cluase when it is really not a threat to health, but an excuse for having the Abortion.

    After all, the very nature of the act of giving birth could, in the hands of the dishonest and unscupulous, be called a "danger to the health of the mother". Is THAT enough of a reason then?

    You Pro-Abortion folks better get used to this. I don;t see much in the very near future that is going to move things back into the other direction....

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]I wonder how those so happy on this board would feel if their wife or daughter was in the second trimester and their life was in jeopardy from the pregnancy but they couldn't have a legal abortion.

    There should be an exception when the health of the mother is at risk.[/QUOTE]
    According to the sentence at the end of the article there is exactly that exception.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]I wonder how those so happy on this board would feel if their wife or daughter was in the second trimester and their life was in jeopardy from the pregnancy but they couldn't have a legal abortion.

    There should be an exception when the health of the mother is at risk.[/QUOTE]


    No offense, but this is a SPECTACULARLY ignorant statement. You are simply parroting the liberal scare tactics, clearly without any knowledge about what it is you are talking. I hope you remember stuff like this the next time you hear Kenny or some other liberal mentioning how conservatives use the politics of "fear" to advance their agenda and fool voters.

    If the life of the mother is at risk, she can terminate at any time. This ruling has nothing whatsoever to do with that, and certainly does not strip that right away. You are simply wrong, period and your example is laughable. You are being lied to and you accept it like a kitten does a bowl of milk.

    I'd also like to point out that many liberals hate organizations like the NRA because the NRA takes extreme positions. The NRA fears the "death by one thousand cuts" incremental process of losing gun rights, so they oppose even seemingly common sense measures. Yet liberals do the same thing regarding abortion. They know that 85% of the country finds the practice of partial-birth abortion horrible, so they can't come out and say they support it. So they prattle on about slippery slopes about restricting a women's right to choose...which is the same thing the NRA does about guns. Of course partial birth abortion is horrible - a late term child is partially delivered, its head it literally outside the mother's body and it's skull is crushed. It is murder, period. But liberals HAVE to support legalizing this because they HAVE to oppose ANY restriction on abortion. This is the same thing they rail against the NRA for!!!

    Or, my favorite, they invoke a phrase like the "health" of the mother. But "health" is a very vague word. Every bill contains a provision for the [I]life[/I] of the mother, but not the health, because they are not the same thing and liberals casually use these words interchangably, as if people won't notice or think about the substantive differences between them. "Health" can mean anything a doctor or patient wants it to mean. Hell, one woman a while ago found out she'd need to deliver by c-section and so she decided to have an abortion because she thought she'd be ugly afterwards, and her "mental health" would be negatively affected.

    So, naturally, liberals can pretend to be against partial birth abortion, but always opposed to [I]this particular bill[/I] because it lacks a provision for the health of the mother. Then they prattle on about irrelevant examples like the one you tried to use in your post. They have been doing it for almost 20 years now. It's their playbook, it's what Clinton said each time he vetoesd these bills. It is a pathetic attempt to feign reasonableness on an issue where they are completely unreasonable, in the same way the NRA is often unreasonable. Well, sorry charlie, but we have judges now with a shred of integrity and who don't get fooled by this. I also love the Left's selective love affair with stare decesis. Of course, the 2nd Amendment is "out of date" but don't ever let our interpretation of abortion rights change!

    So, we're all going to die from global warming and our daughters are going to be made to die by the Supreme Court, but it is the [I]Right Wing[/I] that has a monopoly on the politics of fear? Put that sh*t on toast.
    Last edited by jets5ever; 04-18-2007 at 06:15 PM.

  17. #17
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    I say, good work. Partial birth abortion is cold-blooded murder, as far as I'm concerned.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    I can live with this. Abortions up until 12 weeks ok. Although I think 21 weeks should be the cutoff.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfield County, CT
    Posts
    6,870
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women. [url]http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CZsK[/url][/QUOTE]
    Destroying the skulls of unborn children.

    Is this another one of your boy Obama's "fresh ideas" ??

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,709
    Post Thanks / Like
    Don;t you just love when, after centuries of the SC taking conservative positions, liberals yell that 30 years of established law are being overturned?

    No one mentions how the SC was deceived in the "scientific facts" that permitted a pro-abortion / anti - life ruling in Roe v Wade...........

    OBama just made a huge political mistake. If he runs, his resistence to this ruling will be all over the place. Hillary seemed awfully quiet.... I get the idea Obama figured he could speak first and loudest and collect some $$$$$ for the treasure chest. Big mistake.

    Do yuo get the idea that, should Bush get to nominate the next SC justice, it will be unbelievably vicious in the Senate?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us