jasonxctf Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Justices to Weigh Late-Term Abortion Ban Feb 21 10:39 AM US/Eastern Email this story By GINA HOLLAND Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a newly-constituted court already in a state of flux over privacy rights. The Bush administration has pressed the high court to reinstate the federal law, passed in 2003 but never put in effect because it was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York. The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother. But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Samuel Alito. Abortion had been a major focus in the fight over Alito's nomination because justices serve for life and he will surely help shape the court on abortion and other issues for the next generation. Alito, in his rulings on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, has been more willing than O'Connor, the first woman justice, to allow restrictions on abortions, which were legalized in the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits a certain type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed. Justices on a 9-0 vote in a New Hampshire case reaffirmed in January that states can require parental involvement in abortion decisions and that state restrictions must have an exception to protect the mother's health. The federal law in the current case has no health exception, but defenders maintain that the procedure is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health. Even with O'Connor's retirement, there are five votes to uphold Roe, the landmark ruling that established a woman's right to an abortion. Alito's views "are not going to change the outcome of the central principle of Roe v. Wade," said John Garvey, the dean at Boston College Law School. "In some ways, these are tokens or markers in ... a symbolic tug of war." Bush has called the so-called partial birth abortion an "abhorrent practice," and his Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General Paul Clement, had urged justices not to delay taking up the administration's appeal. The case that will be heard this fall comes to the Supreme Court from Nebraska, where the federal law was challenged on behalf of physicians. Doctors who perform the procedure contend that it is the safest method of abortion when the mother's health is threatened by heart disease, high blood pressure or cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 my personal thought is that the last sentence says it all. We've got anti-abortion people on one side saying that it never medically necessary to save a women's life and doctors on the other side saying that it's the safest way to save a women's life when she is in danger. let's just assume that the anti-abortion people are right on this one... just assume. if the procedure is never medically necessary to save someone's life, then they shouldn't have a problem with the protectionary clause. it would never be enforced. this makes me believe that it could be medically necessary to save someone's life but that the anti-abortion people want to save the fetus's life more than the mother's life and thus want it outlawed entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I guess that falls under if you have nothing to lose/hide, you won't mind if we pass this law? Hmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 11:49 AM) my personal thought is that the last sentence says it all. We've got anti-abortion people on one side saying that it never medically necessary to save a women's life and doctors on the other side saying that it's the safest way to save a women's life when she is in danger. let's just assume that the anti-abortion people are right on this one... just assume. if the procedure is never medically necessary to save someone's life, then they shouldn't have a problem with the protectionary clause. it would never be enforced. this makes me believe that it could be medically necessary to save someone's life but that the anti-abortion people want to save the fetus's life more than the mother's life and thus want it outlawed entirely. So you believe its medically necessary to induce birth until the head is exposed of the child, then puncture the head or crush the skull of the baby. This is the pratice that you are talking about. Stop acting like this is the start of Roe vs Wade. This is a barbaric way to kill a baby. And for all you abortion rights people, at the 2nd and 3rd trimester. This is a baby not just a mass of cells as you call it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I have to agree with SSI71. I am personally against any form of abortion but would never stop or judge someone that does, but this late term abortion just sounds horrific (I've gone to pro and anti sites and both make me sick). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 There are few serious medical procedures that don't make you sick. It was my impression that these operations are pretty risky as it was... there are other safer ways to perform a late trimester abortion - as far as I know - which is admittedly, not much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 06:23 PM) So you believe its medically necessary to induce birth until the head is exposed of the child, then puncture the head or crush the skull of the baby. This is the pratice that you are talking about. Stop acting like this is the start of Roe vs Wade. This is a barbaric way to kill a baby. And for all you abortion rights people, at the 2nd and 3rd trimester. This is a baby not just a mass of cells as you call it. if it keeps mama from dying, then yes i do believe it would be medically necessary. point here is that neither you nor i nor the pro-lifers or choicers know this for sure. if the doctors say its necessary and true, i'll take their word for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 01:46 PM) if it keeps mama from dying, then yes i do believe it would be medically necessary. point here is that neither you nor i nor the pro-lifers or choicers know this for sure. if the doctors say its necessary and true, i'll take their word for it. Odd its the people who perform this procedure who are the only ones who are barking that this is a good thing. Its not like doctors around the medical community are clamoring for this type of procedure. Only the aboritionists who make a buck from this procedure are the ones who are speaking up for it. If its such a critical thing that they need to terminate the life they wouldnt force mama to partially give birth until the head comes out. They would perform a quick C section and remove the baby. Going through the birthing process until the baby's head protrudes from the vaginal canal is a bit more stressful than a C section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samclemens Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 dont underestimate alito. all signs point to him and roberts swinging this court. if they dont eventually ban abortions except for when there is health reasons or incest, etc. i will be extremely suprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 01:46 PM) if it keeps mama from dying, then yes i do believe it would be medically necessary. point here is that neither you nor i nor the pro-lifers or choicers know this for sure. if the doctors say its necessary and true, i'll take their word for it. How often is such a scenario going to occur in which a mothers only chance for survival is for their baby to be aborted? It doesn't even make sense, as I gather the argument presented earlier in this thread. If the babies removal is necessary because of the mother's health, why kill it? Edited February 21, 2006 by Flash Tizzle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samclemens Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 04:30 PM) How often is such a scenario going to occur in which a mothers only chance for survival is for their baby to be aborted? It doesn't even make sense, as I gather the argument presented earlier in this thread. If the babies removal is necessary because of the mother's health, why kill it? hmm...to save the mother? wait, do you think that a baby can be removed from the womb and kept alive if doctors wanted to do it? i think they can to a certain point from the beginning of the pregnancy. they always keep those babies alive, of course, if they can. it would be murder to take it out back and throw it in the dumpster. what about abortions where you know it will be detrimental to the mother, before the baby could be saved, like in the 1st trimester? or an incest baby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(samclemens @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 02:38 PM) hmm...to save the mother? wait, do you think that a baby can be removed from the womb and kept alive if doctors wanted to do it? i think they can to a certain point from the beginning of the pregnancy. they always keep those babies alive, of course, if they can. it would be murder to take it out back and throw it in the dumpster. I don't know much about the complications which may occur during pregnancy. I'm just attempting to understand how if such a scenario would present itself where the child is endangering its mother, why would it be necessary to use an abortion? I heard this mentioned earlier, and was hoping someone could elaborate upon the issue. what about abortions where you know it will be detrimental to the mother, before the baby could be saved, like in the 1st trimester? or an incest baby? Then an abortion would be necessary. I'm not completely against it. Abortions occuring early from rape or incest should be mandatory. Even unwanted pregnancies I have no problems against if it occurs early in the pregnancy. However, If we're talking about woman carrying a child six months old when supposed complications arise, then I do. Or a teenage mother four months pregnant deciding she can no longer hide it from her parents. Too late for that, as well. Edited February 21, 2006 by Flash Tizzle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(samclemens @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 02:29 PM) dont underestimate alito. all signs point to him and roberts swinging this court. if they dont eventually ban abortions except for when there is health reasons or incest, etc. i will be extremely suprised. I don't think they will ban abortions. The key word in that statement is 'ban'. They may, however, overturn Roe v Wade which would then put the decision whether or not abortion should be legalized back in the hands of the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 02:25 AM) I don't think they will ban abortions. The key word in that statement is 'ban'. They may, however, overturn Roe v Wade which would then put the decision whether or not abortion should be legalized back in the hands of the states. And which would also make it possible for the federal government to actually institute a ban, by simply getting a majority vote in both houses of Congress. Yes, it would go to the states at first, but there wouldn't be any reason to assume it would remain only a state decisision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I doubt it would make it through. There are too many pro choice GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 09:44 AM) I doubt it would make it through. There are too many pro choice GOP. There are also anti-choice Dems. Harry Reid...for example...a fact which could seriously derail any attempt to organize a firm resistance or filibuster in the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 With all the corporate deals tied to those getting sweet assistance from the Bush administration, we're likely to know if abortion will be overturned if somebody can dig up facts related to coathanger companies' relationships with BushCo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 04:40 PM) With all the corporate deals tied to those getting sweet assistance from the Bush administration, we're likely to know if abortion will be overturned if somebody can dig up facts related to coathanger companies' relationships with BushCo. very classy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 04:40 PM) With all the corporate deals tied to those getting sweet assistance from the Bush administration, we're likely to know if abortion will be overturned if somebody can dig up facts related to coathanger companies' relationships with BushCo. Would information forwarded from French intelligence work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 12:46 PM) There are also anti-choice Dems. Harry Reid...for example...a fact which could seriously derail any attempt to organize a firm resistance or filibuster in the Senate. Harry Reid has also said that he wouldn't vote to illegalize abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 11:46 AM) There are also anti-choice Dems. Harry Reid...for example...a fact which could seriously derail any attempt to organize a firm resistance or filibuster in the Senate. I love the word "anti-choice" in here. Just a question of complete curiosity, did you think about it when using that word, or did it just come out? Not bashing or anything, just curious. Sometimes, I like looking at the words that are used when this type of thing is discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 QUOTE(vandy125 @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 03:13 PM) I love the word "anti-choice" in here. Just a question of complete curiosity, did you think about it when using that word, or did it just come out? Not bashing or anything, just curious. Sometimes, I like looking at the words that are used when this type of thing is discussed. Actually I did give that some thought...it wasn't just a knee-jerk thing. I think there's a big difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. There's also a big difference between being anti-choice and being anti-abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 02:56 PM) Harry Reid has also said that he wouldn't vote to illegalize abortion. That doesn't mean he would be willing to support a filibuster of said bill, which if it ever comes up would have its biggest fight be over cloture if the Senate remained closely divided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 He wouldn't but you only need 40 Senators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 04:49 PM) very classy It is called a joke. I thought it was so tongue in cheek that the green wouldn't be needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts