Archive for Thursday, April 19, 2007

High court backs ban on abortion procedure

April 19, 2007

Advertisement

Reader poll
What do you think of the Supreme Court's partial birth abortion ruling?

or See the results without voting

— The Supreme Court's new conservative majority gave anti-abortion forces a landmark victory Wednesday in a 5-4 decision that bans a controversial abortion procedure nationwide and sets the stage for further restrictions.

It was a long-awaited and resounding win that abortion opponents had hoped to gain from a court pushed to the right by President Bush's appointees.

For the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, the justices said the Constitution permits a nationwide prohibition on a specific abortion method. The court's liberal justices, in dissent, said the ruling chipped away at abortion rights.

The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

Siding with Kennedy were Bush's appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, along with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

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.

Doctors who violate the law could face up to two years in federal prison. The law has not taken effect, pending the outcome of the legal fight.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court."

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

Comments

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years ago

The majority aren't doctors, but they play doctors on the Supreme Court.

Ragingbear 8 years ago

Goodbye abortions, hello coat hangers.

KS 8 years ago

And the beat goes on! The baby's heart that is. It's about time someone exercised some common sense.

SettingTheRecordStraight 8 years ago

This is a great ruling!

Now let's fight to end Tiller's use of the grisly procedure.

Ragingbear 8 years ago

Yeah. Coat hanger abortions didn't happen. Neither did the holocaust. Or the Vietnam war for that matter.

Ragingbear 8 years ago

I love it when people think they are so high above everyone else that they think they got ANY say in this whatsoever.

SettingTheRecordStraight 8 years ago

Dambudzo, Abortion is not just a female tragedy. It is a civil rights abrogation and a human rights crime.

Ragingbear, If a person wants to have their appendix removed, fine. Tonsils out? Great. Both arms amputated? Your call.

Separate, developing, living human life, however? Not an option.

shockchalk 8 years ago

This is long overdue. This procedure is horrific and many abortion doctors won't eved perform it. This doesn't prevent abortions so you don't need to get in an uproar ragingbear.

kshiker 8 years ago

This decision actually does not conflict with the the stare decisis established in the majority decision in Roe v. Wade. In the Roe decision, the Supreme Court concluded that the state had a justified governmental interest in protecting a fetus once it has reached the point of viability.

Thus, the court would allow states to enact restrictions on abortions once the fetus reached the point of viability, which is generally thought to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 weeks. When you actually take the time to read both decisions, you will see that this new decision does not conflict with Roe.

In contrast, the court's previous pro-choice decisions in Sternberg v. Carhart and Planned Parenthood v. Casey actually conflicted with the ruling in Roe by abandoning the position that states could regulate abortions post-viability. If you have a problem with cases conflicting with Roe, you need to look at those cases.

Further, this procedure is uterrly barbaric. Please read Kennedy's opinion as it explains the procedure in detail. If a veterinarian did this same procedure to a puppy most of the critics would be writing letters to Congress to have the procedure stopped. Extremely hypocritical!

Crispian Paul 8 years ago

Posted by SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) on April 19, 2007 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dambudzo, Abortion is not just a female tragedy. It is a civil rights abrogation and a human rights crime.

Ragingbear, If a person wants to have their appendix removed, fine. Tonsils out? Great. Both arms amputated? Your call.

Separate, developing, living human life, however? Not an option.

Well, yeah it is an option. That's why abortion is still legal in this country.

Interestingly, do you all know the term partial birth abortion is not even a medical term. The actual term is intact dilation and extraction. The term partial birth abortion was really only developed by political groups opposed to abortion in the late 90's in order to better stir up people's emotions and doubts.

Crispian Paul 8 years ago

Not so, actually. This procedure is common for women who have had their child die in-utero and have not spontaneously miscarried. They need to remove the fetus soon and as whole as possible in order to be able to quickly discover the epidemiology of the child and mother (i.e. incompatible RH factor, genetic mutations, etc).

I am not saying I agree with the procedure one way or the other. It is not my place to say what someone else does to their body. I will say, though, that we need to have good, balanced information about this procedure. A) Partial Birth abortion is a purely political term B) This is a more common procedure than most people will have you believe C) Not every fetus aborted this way is viable D) Most fetuses aborted this way in fact are not viable and are too large to spontaneously miscarry.

Crispian Paul 8 years ago

Above is regarding this:

Posted by shockchalk (anonymous) on April 19, 2007 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is long overdue. This procedure is horrific and many abortion doctors won't eved perform it.

SettingTheRecordStraight 8 years ago

"Interestingly, do you all know the term partial birth abortion is not even a medical term."

Neither is "homophobe," but the homosexual lobby uses it as if it is.

rhd99 8 years ago

NEWSFLASH! Politicians, INCLUDING Alberto, BUSH, BROWNBACK & Justices like Alito & Roberts AREN'T DOCTORS! Enough already! When are you right wing nuts going to get the bigger picture clear in your short sighted visions. While I support human life, I DO NOT support the short-sighted visions of people (not here on the board) but out there in DC PRETENDING to be doctors & ALLOWING insurance companies to dictate what a woman can or cannot do. I thought some women here would see through that WRONGFUL assumption made by irresponsible politicians who work not for the American people but for their OWN stinken political pocket books. Enjoy now because the fight has just started.

rhd99 8 years ago

Oh, & one more thing, killing babies is wrong. SO TOO is denying the fact that pregnant women could suffer illnesses that could JEOPARDIZE the fetus in the advanced stages of the pregnancy. Oh, I forgot, BROWNIE & Mit Romney are doctors. THEY know what's best. Folks, I don't know what is best. This issue had NO business in being in the hands of Brownback. End of line. Politicians, eat my shorts!

shockchalk 8 years ago

rhd99.........Newsflash........Lower court judges have been ruling against the ban since 2003.........so, I guess it's okay with you if justices on YOUR side of the issue have their opinion heard. They do believe that it's their job to interpret the constitution because the voters aren't intelligent enough to speak for themselves. You'll have to come up with a better argument than that rhd.

kshiker 8 years ago

rhd99 --

First of all, I would have to say wow. Speaking of medical advice, you may want to speak to a doctor. I think you might have turrets.

Second, since Mitt Romney was not a member of the House or Senate when this particular piece of legislation passed the Congress, I'm not quite sure if I follow your point where you said he had a hand in this.

rhd99 8 years ago

WOW part II, none of you get it do you? You say I need a medical doctor? None of you are qualified to make that kind of judgement. Well, when there comes a day that some pregnant women die from complications of giving birth, it's on all your heads. Forget you all.

Ragingbear 8 years ago

Informed, I'm not saying that Nazi's aren't saying that "some" Jews died. But that they died of starvation and suicide, and were not really taken to camps and exterminated en-masse. I am pretty sure this was the same type of mentality that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands or more. Of course, all your petty little minds can wrap your heads around is that people that bomb abortion clinics are somehow heroes.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.