Supreme Court upholds PBA ban

[Avatar4321]

Looks like partial birth abortions can be banned.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

with all due respect to everyone, i dont see where in the constitution it said abortion was legal, and frankly, why cant each state decide for itself without government, or court interference what they want their abortion policy too be?

 

[Bern80]

with all due respect to everyone, i dont see where in the constitution it said abortion was legal, and frankly, why cant each state decide for itself without government, or court interference what they want their abortion policy too be?

Wouldn't the state (governement) still be government deciding?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

with all due respect to everyone, i dont see where in the constitution it said abortion was legal, and frankly, why cant each state decide for itself without government, or court interference what they want their abortion policy too be?

So you oppose the PBA ban then?

Wouldn't the state (governement) still be government deciding?

Yes it would. But in the context of what he's talking about he's referring to the State and Federal in the 10th Amendment.

Edit: 10th Amendment not 9th

 

[boedicca]

If Edwards can make a fortune suing (and driving out of practice) OB-GYNs for not being able to save premature babies, it only makes sense that aborting equally developed fetii should be wrong.

 

[GeeWhiz]

That's what stacking the court with ideologists does for ya.

The Conservative Court doesn't need to rule on the basis of facts anymore, the Conservative Court doesn't need to rule on the basis of law anymore, the Conservative Court will rule on partisan politics.

The ruling gives the woman the middle finger and tells her that her life is dispensible. In other words the Conservative Court has one message in this ruling and that is: Die Bitch!

Conservatives synonymous with the culture of Death.

 

[Shogun]

come on, dude...


it's called democracy and is reflective of the will of the people. At this time the will of the people have said that a blank check on abortion is not allowed. Besides, a compramise isnt a one sided event and, correct me if I am wrong but abortions are still legal as are sex education, and the vast range of preventative measures?


is the mellowdramatic fit really helpinig your position?



believe it when I tell you that Americans feel just as strongly about the death of feti and womens health as you do about about womens rights and reproductive choices. This is not something that should prompt "sky is falling" chicken little silliness.

 

[Mr.Conley]

with all due respect to everyone, i dont see where in the constitution it said abortion was legal, and frankly, why cant each state decide for itself without government, or court interference what they want their abortion policy too be?

I'm not all-out pro-choice by any means, but i have to disagree with your logic in the bolded area. Just because the Constitution doesn't say that an action is legal doesn't mean it's illegal. The Constitution doesn't specify whether you have the Constitutional right to eat Chinese food, but that doesn't mean the government can arrest you for it. The Constitution doesn't innumerate your rights, rather it grants the government rights and specifies limits on government power. You yourself have all rights and can do whatever you desire so long as you don't injure other human beings, their property, or commit fraud. Rights are inherent, the Bill of Rights serves to protect those rights from government abuse.

 

[Shogun]

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[Avatar4321]

That's what stacking the court with ideologists does for ya.

If you mean it gets you greater sanctity and protection for human life, it looks like it does in this case. Why is protecting life bad?

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm not all-out pro-choice by any means, but i have to disagree with your logic in the bolded area. Just because the Constitution doesn't say that an action is legal doesn't mean it's illegal. The Constitution doesn't specify whether you have the Constitutional right to eat Chinese food, but that doesn't mean the government can arrest you for it. The Constitution doesn't innumerate your rights, rather it grants the government rights and specifies limits on government power. You yourself have all rights and can do whatever you desire so long as you don't injure other human beings, their property, or commit fraud. Rights are inherent, the Bill of Rights serves to protect those rights from government abuse.

Actually, it if the state legislature decided to ban chinese food it could mean you can be arrested for eating it. It would be an incredibly stupid use of government power, but it would be perfectly legitimate for the state to do so, theoretically. After all if it was constitutional to do so, then why would the libs be trying so hard to ban fast food? I think it would be a stupid and bad law, but that wouldnt make it unconstitutional.

 

[Bern80]

That's what stacking the court with ideologists does for ya.

The Conservative Court doesn't need to rule on the basis of facts anymore, the Conservative Court doesn't need to rule on the basis of law anymore, the Conservative Court will rule on partisan politics.

The ruling gives the woman the middle finger and tells her that her life is dispensible. In other words the Conservative Court has one message in this ruling and that is: Die Bitch!

Conservatives synonymous with the culture of Death.

If you read the actual opinion of the court you would know that that's not true. What they ruled on was that the ban on partial birth abortions where the mother's life in not at stake in the state if NE is constitutional.

Do a little research before you get yourself in a tizzy.

 

[GeeWhiz]

If you read the actual opinion of the court you would know that that's not true. What they ruled on was that the ban on partial birth abortions where the mother's life in not at stake in the state if NE is constitutional.

Do a little research before you get yourself in a tizzy.

I did read the ruling that's why I posted what I did. It was you who didn't read the ruling. If you acutally read it you would have came across this from the dissenting judges:

Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

Today's decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It 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 (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health.

Noticed the statement in bold above. That is the fact in a nutshell.
Below are facts the Conservative Grim Reapers on the bench chose to politicize the issue of abortion as the facts below proves.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 851-852 (1992), described more precisely than did Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), the impact of abortion restrictions on women's liberty

The Act's sponsors left no doubt that their intention was to nullify our ruling in Stenberg, 530 U. S. 914. See, e.g., 149 Cong. Rec. 5731 (2003) (statement of Sen. Santorum) ("Why are we here? We are here because the Supreme Court defended the indefensible... . We have responded to the Supreme Court."). See also 148 Cong. Rec. 14273 (2002) (statement of Rep. Linder) (rejecting proposition that Congress has "no right to legislate a ban on this horrible practice because the Supreme Court says [it] cannot").

Notice the statement above in bold. The Republican controlled legislative branch created the ban on the procedure for political reasons and the Bush stacked court ran with killing woman in the name of politics and the Grim Reaper controlled court cared not one iota for the safety of the woman when they banned the procedure. It is all for no other reason than to suck up to the Mean Spirited Christian Conservatives.

"The Government's own experts disagreed with almost all of Congress's factual findings"; a "significant body of medical opinion" holds that intact D&E has safety advantages over nonintact D&E; "[p]rofessional medical associations have also expressed their view that [intact D&E] may be the safest procedure for some women"; and "[t]he evidence indicates that the same disagreement among experts found by the Supreme Court in Stenberg existed throughout the time that Congress was considering the legislation, despite Congress's findings to the contrary." National Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 480-482.

Again the statement in bold which proves once again the Mean Spirited Republican controlled legislative branch sought to kill the woman. The mean spirited Conservative judges joined the killing can be fun crowd by making it illegal for doctors to save the life of the woman. And the Mean Spirited Conservative Chrisitans spear headed this ban on a procedure so that death can take it's toll.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

^ That was NOT "the ruling", that was a statement from NOW.

You want the REAL ruling?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZS.html

The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy, who'll waffle on any given abortion case. He was pratically begging in this to solicit a health-based challenge again:

He makes this clear in several ways, including distinguishing between a "facial" vs. "as-applied" challenge, and all but invites such a challenge. That is, he is soliciting a health-exception challenge. Kennedy also telegraphs how he'll vote — with the other four activists. In short, he says the federal statute, which excepts partial-birth abortion in cases that threaten the life of the mother (thereby narrowing the health exception), is consistent with past court rulings, but he is prepared to reverse course in a future case involving non-life threatening health exceptions. Maybe today's decision will temporarily chill doctors from performing partial-birth abortions. But the emphasis here is on word "temporary."

The radical pro-abortion movement will mischaracterize this decision. They will claim it's a huge setback for choice. Their purpose will be to mobilize their forces against any limits, no matter how reasonable or narrow. And the Democrat presidential candidates will issue scathing and misinformed (perhaps intentionally) statements about the supposedly right-wing Supreme Court. But, in truth, they have much to celebrate today. Anthony Kennedy has already signaled his true intentions. And I have no doubt the pro-abortion movement is already looking for its next case.

As for the media, the reporting so far has been straight out of a NARAL press release. I would encourage "journalists" to actually read the decision. I know it's over 70 pages long, so maybe they'll want someone to read it to them.

http://levin.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGU4ZTc3NzY2NTJkYjE4N2RkYzhhMGZhZGFjMjdjNjU=

"Health of the mother" = "on demand", anytime, any reason. What more can I say?

Oh, I can bash Rudy Giuliani again. Does he?:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giZx5i3Ntv0[/ame]

Or doesn't he?:

http://thepoliticker.observer.com/2007/04/todays-giuliani-agrees-with-court-decision.html

But Barbara Boxer wins the "huh" award again:

"I know this is a very hard and emotional week given everything that's happened," Boxer said at the opening of a speech on global warming in Washington, D.C. She then listed "continuing violence in Iraq ... the accident that our good, dear friend Gov. Corzine is suffering from, the Virginia Tech tragedy ... and today a Supreme Court decision that I believe endangers women's health

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200704/POL20070418b.html

But that's NOT equating one with the other, of course. Partial-birth abortion has NEVER saved a woman's life, never.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

^ That was NOT "the ruling", that was a statement from NOW.

That was actually the dissenting opinion.

"Today’s decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It 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 (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey,between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman’s health.

I dissent from the Court’s disposition. Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman’s health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman’s reproductive choices."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZD.html

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

There was no link, nothing about the majority opinion.

That was actually the dissenting opinion.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZD.html

Yep, written by Justice Ginsberg herself, no surprise. It does not sound like a dissent, more like this NOW press release:

Today the Supreme Court upheld this nation's first abortion procedure ban—a ban enacted by George W. Bush and conservatives in Congress. Five justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito—both installed by Bush and a Republican-majority Senate—ruled that the law does not violate a woman's constitutional right to abortion.

Not since Bush v. Gore has the Supreme Court made such a political decision, or one that so completely distorts the law and disregards the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.now.org/press/04-07/04-18.html

Guess it isn't a "political decision" when they agree with SCOTUS.

If they think this is a winning issue for 2008, they're wrong again. Every poll of American citizens on this issue show they overwhelmingly oppose partial-birth abortion.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

There was no link, nothing about the majority opinion.

Dude that was your link.

 

[red states rule]

The liberal media is in mourning along with the left

They consider drilling a hole in the babies head, sucking it's brain out, and collapsing the skull - is now considered a loss of abortion rights


Nets Separate from 'Partial-Birth' Term, Frame Story Around Loss of 'Abortion Rights'
Posted by Brent Baker on April 18, 2007 - 21:19.
The ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts on Tuesday night all ran full stories on the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Act, but while each included arguments from justices in the majority, featured a soundbite from pro-life lawyer Jay Sekulow and offered at least a brief description of the procedure, they all framed the stories in ways favorable to those on the losing side. All led into competing soundbites by putting abortion supporters on the side of “rights” -- describing “abortion rights supporters” versus “abortion opponents” -- characterized the ruling as imposing a further “restriction” on abortion instead of as expanding protection for the unborn, and creatively distanced themselves from the “partial-birth” abortion term.

ABC's Charles Gibson saw “a long-sought victory for abortion opponents” before Jan Crawford Greenburg fretted that “abortion rights activists were devastated.” CBS's Wyatt Andrews highlighted how “abortion rights supporters bitterly protested” since “the ban is now the first abortion restriction ever approved with no exception for the health of the mother.” NBC's Chip Reid related that “abortion rights activists worry this may be only the start of a campaign to limit abortion rights.”

“So-called” partial-birth hot potato: With “5-4 ruling upholds federal ban on so-called 'partial-birth abortion'” on screen, ABC anchor Gibson brought in ideology as he announced that "the court's new conservative majority today upheld a nationwide ban on a controversial procedure, one that critics call 'partial-birth abortion.'” Jan Crawford Greenburg cited how “the court said the government could ban a specific type of abortion procedure.” Over on the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric referred to “a controversial late-term abortion procedure” and Wyatt Andrews reported on “what Congress called 'partial-birth abortions.'” NBC's Chip Reid asserted that the court “upheld a federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure that opponents call 'partial-birth abortion.'”

The ABC and CBS stories were the least balanced since, after giving about equal time to quotes from justices on both sides and advocates on each side, the two networks added another pro-partial-birth abortion perspective. ABC's Greenburg featured the view of an “abortion provider” and CBS's Andrews showcased a woman, whose baby would have suffered and died after birth, who had a partial-birth abortion and, in tears, declared: “It's wrong for this law to exist at all. Nobody could agonize over the decision more than my husband and I did.”

Transcripts of the three April 18 stories for which I made partial transcripts that Brad Wilmouth completed: .

ABC's World News. Charles Gibson, in opening teaser:


"Abortion ban: The Supreme Court upholds a ban on the procedure known as 'partial-birth abortion,' its most sweeping decision since Roe v. Wade."
With "5-4 ruling upholds federal ban on so-called 'partial-birth abortion'" on screen, Gibson set up the subsequent story:

"Now to the Supreme Court and a very important decision on abortion. In a 5-4 landmark decision, the court's new conservative majority today upheld a nationwide ban on a controversial procedure, one that critics call 'partial-birth abortion.' It was a long-sought victory for abortion opponents. And it sets the stage for even more legal battles to come. ABC's Jan Crawford Greenburg joins us from the court tonight. Jan?"

Jan Crawford Greenburg: "Charlie, today's decision represents a seismic shift. For the first time since Roe versus Wade, the court said the government could ban a specific type of abortion procedure. And for the first time, it upheld an abortion law that did not contain an exception for a woman's health. Scores of women gathered at the Supreme Court to protest. Abortion rights activists were devastated."

Nancy Northrup, Center for Reproductive Rights: "The Supreme Court basically guts 30 years of protection for women's health in the regulation of abortion."

Greenburg: "At issue, a bipartisan federal law that banned one type of abortion performed in the second trimester. The law is called the 'Partial-Birth Abortion Act' because the fetus is partially delivered from the womb before it is killed. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said Congress found the procedure 'gruesome' and 'never medically necessary.' Kennedy said the government has the right to pass laws that 'show its profound respect for the life within the woman.' In court today, an angry Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the unusual step of reading parts of her dissent aloud. She said the decision was 'alarming' and could jeopardize women's health. She said it 'cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away' at the right to an abortion. Conservatives agreed. They said the decision is a significant change that will lead to more restrictions on abortion."

Jay Sekulow, American Center for Law and Justice: "Doctors don't get to do everything they want to do all the time, especially when there's a life involved in it, and here I think the court said, 'You know what? I think when it comes to infanticide, when it comes to this procedure, we're saying no.'"

Greenburg: "But abortion doctors like LeRoy Carhart say some women need the procedure."

Dr. LeRoy Carhart, abortion provider: "Abortion for women will become more risky."

Greenburg to Carhart: "Why?"

Carhart: "Because we won't be able to do what I feel is the safest."

Greenburg: "Today's decision also shows the differences that elections and Supreme Court nominations can make. Just seven years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a similar state law when Sandra Day O'Connor was on the court. Neither John Roberts or Sam Alito had yet to be nominated."


CBS Evening News. Katie Couric, in opening teaser:

"A major ruling from the Supreme Court on abortion. The court upholds the federal ban on a controversial late-term abortion procedure."
Couric introduced the story:

"Now to another big story tonight, a Supreme Court ruling on abortion. The justices, sharply divided, today upheld the new federal ban on a controversial late-term abortion procedure, a procedure opponents and the law itself refer to as 'partial-birth abortion.' In the 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy all voted to uphold the ban. In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote that opponents of the ban 'have not demonstrated that the act imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion.' We'll begin our coverage of this ruling with Wyatt Andrews."

Wyatt Andrews: "It's the first federal ban on any kind of abortion since the court established the right to an abortion in Roe vs. Wade. For abortion opponents, it's the biggest legal victory in 34 years."

Jay Sekulow, American Center for Law and Justice: "The court said the states have a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn child's life."

Andrews, over "Partial-Birth Abortion Ruling" on-screen: "The ban on what Congress called 'partial-birth abortions' applies to any abortion where a fetus is delivered mostly intact. The law, in part, says 'past the navel' when the doctor then kills the 'partially delivered living fetus.' In a 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy said Congress was justified in finding this 'similar to the killing of a newborn infant.'"

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT): "An overwhelming case was made that this procedure was not necessary and it was a barbaric procedure."

Andrews: "The ruling is huge because the ban is now the first abortion restriction ever approved with no exception for the health of the mother."

Clip of protesters: "Not the church, not the state, women must decide their fate!"

Andrews: "Abortion rights supporters bitterly protested even though the number of the banned abortions is small and mostly confined to the third trimester. The protesters say this law can now apply to thousands of second-trimester abortions even when the woman's doctor thinks partial delivery is the safest course."

Eve Gartner, Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "So now, politicians, not doctors, are making medical decisions that are going to put women at risk of hemorrhage, loss of future fertility, and other very serious medical harms."

Andrews: "Opponents of the ban also argue the law could apply to women like Mary Vargas, whose late-term fetus suffered kidney failure in the womb."

Mary Vargas: "Our son had no chance at life."

Andrews: "Her choice, she says, was between birth, where the child would suffer and die, or the kind of mostly intact abortion that's now illegal."

Vargas: "It's wrong for this law to exist at all. Nobody could agonize over the decision more than my husband and I did."

Andrews: "In a stinging dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the ruling 'alarming' and 'irrational' and blasted the all-male majority for not respecting women's choices. 'This way of thinking,' she wrote, 'reflects ancient notions of women's place in the family.' This is one of those rulings that will have a long-term impact. The very definition of a safe and legal abortion has just changed with abortion opponents saying it's about time. Wyatt Andrews, CBS News, at the Supreme Court."

NBC Nightly News. Brian Williams:

"But first to Washington and the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices today issued what may be the most important abortion ruling since Roe versus Wade decades ago. Chip Reid is at the court for us tonight. Chip, good evening."
Chip Reid:

"Well, good evening, Brian. For the first time in the 34 years since Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court today upheld a ban of a specific abortion procedure. Activists on both sides are calling the decision monumental. At the Supreme Court today, a stunning defeat for supporters of abortion rights."

Eve Gartner, Planned Parenthood: "Today's ruling is a seismic shift in the way that the court has handled protections for a woman's health."

Reid: "The court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld a federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure that opponents call 'partial-birth abortion.' Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority that the law does not impose an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion. Abortion opponents call it a major victory, stopping abortions that partially deliver a fetus, then collapse its skull."

Jay Sekulow, pro-life attorney: "I think it's going to be a huge momentum shift for the pro-life movement. The opinion is very, very significant."

Reid: "Nearly 90 percent of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and are not affected by the ruling, but writing for the court's four dissenting justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision 'alarming,' arguing that for the first time since the court established a right to abortion, in 1973 in Roe v. Wade, it has approved an abortion restriction without making an exception for a woman's health. Abortion rights activists worry this may be only the start of a campaign to limit abortion rights."

Eleanor Smeal, pro-choice activist: "This decision is an invitation to legislators both at the national and state level to further restrict abortion, and the Supreme Court will let it happen."

Reid: "Supreme Court experts say one key to today's decision is the replacement of moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with conservative Samuel Alito. This decision, they say, could be a sign the court is heading in a new direction on abortion."

Tom Goldstein, Supreme Court attorney: "Today the Supreme Court opened the door to a possible overruling of Roe v. Wade. They didn't give any strong indications whether they would walk through the door."

Reid: "Now, doctors who violate the ban could get as much as two years in jail, but there is no penalty for women who undergo the banned procedure."

 

[red states rule]

Opposing view: A welcome decision
Ruling bars barbaric practice, sets stage for more abortion curbs.
By Edward Whelan

All Americans should welcome the Supreme Court ruling upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortion.

Let's begin with the facts. Partial-birth abortion is a method of late-term abortion in which the abortionist dilates the mother's cervix, extracts the baby's body by the feet until all but the head has emerged, stabs scissors into the head, sucks out the baby's brains, collapses the baby's skull, and delivers the dead baby. This atrocity is inflicted up to 5,000 times a year in this country — generally on healthy babies of healthy mothers.

Americans on both sides of the abortion divide recognize that partial-birth abortion is barbaric. That's why bipartisan majorities in Congress, including Democrats such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, voted for the partial-birth law.

The five justices in the majority who upheld the law exercised judicial restraint and properly deferred to the democratic process. The four liberal judicial activists in dissent — led by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who maintains that the Constitution even requires taxpayer-funded abortion — sought to impose their own extremist agenda.

In its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court imposed on the American people a radical regime of unrestricted abortion. Wednesday's ruling offers some hope of moderating that regime.

In particular, the court made clear that laws regulating abortion should generally be attacked only in their application to particular circumstances.

Americans now have the green light to enact state partial-birth bans modeled on the federal ban. Legislatures should also pursue more robust informed-consent rules on, for example, ultrasound imaging and fetal pain.

More broadly, the ruling shows that the court's decades-long power grab on abortion has failed to generate a coherent consensus among the justices. With further improvements in the court's makeup, abortion policy can be restored to where it belongs: to citizens acting through their legislators.

Edward Whelan is president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.

Posted at 12:21 AM/ET, April 19, 2007 in Law/Judiciary - Editorial, Medical issues - Abortion - Editorial, Politics,
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/04/post_59.html

 

[Dirt McGirt]

I find it very hypocritical that the people who argue that Roe v Wade should be overturned because abortion should be a State's right, would welcome a federal ban on partial-birth abortions. A federal ban on anything takes away from State's rights. That's not federalism, that's an anti-abortion position masquerading as federalism- very contradictive.