Link



To be debated:

1. Did the Supreme Court decide correctly?

2. What are the implications for future decisions regarding abortion law?

1. Did the Supreme Court decide correctly?

Yes. The Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 is not an unconstitutional violation into the private lives' of women. The safety of a woman's life is found within the act--a doctor may perform a partial-birth abortion if s/he can prove it necessary to save the life of the mother. From a purely legal perspective, this was the appropriate decision.

2. What are the implications for future decisions regarding abortion law?

There will be future attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade. I doubt that the court will ever overturn Roe v. Wade, since the law is based on the privacy of citizens as opposed to medical concerns. And if the court does overturn it, you can be damn well sure that an upheaval, possibly even a rebellion, will force state legislatures to provide abortion rights to their citizens. Well, maybe not Utah, but that's because my state is mostly comprised of insane people.

Even while opting to vote for the Act, the Senate declared its support of the Roe v. Wade decision (Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003). The real question boils down to--at what point does the fetus become a living, sentient person which constitutes an act of abortion as an act of murder? I can not answer this. I do not know. People who do argue to know are either: 1) scientists, doctors, medical professionals, and specialists in pre-natal care; or 2) irrational fanatics who rely on personal beliefs with no empirical evidence to support their argument.

What I do find interesting is the switched arguments--conservatives arguing for governmental intrusion into the private medical world and liberals arguing for governmental exclusion. Liberals generally seem to desire a guarantee of health care by our government. I would agree with this position. Conservatives feel that the private sector is the best method for health care, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. Private sector has proven itself, many times over, that the care of individuals does not concern them. Specifically, insurance providers have an incredibly money-motivated drive. Each view has pros and cons.

This brings into question whether or not government can actually intrude on the rights of a private-sector health care system to determine health care matters. If government was providing health care, there could be an argument for their intrusion into the private medical lives of individuals. I believe health care reform needs to be a serious overhaul--not government-provided insurance, but governmental control over the private sector industry.

While I agree with the Supreme Court's decision, that the Act is not unconstitutional, I disagree with the decision from a moral and ethical standpoint.

A legitimate function of government includes protecting the lives, property and rights of the people from internal and external threats. You do not need to be a citizen for the protections of society to extend to you, you do not need the right to vote. You do not need to be wanted.

This bill protects the lives of living human beings who are protected by the provisions of several other laws. In Wisconsin and South Dakota, for example, a pregnant woman is subject to child abuse laws if she chronically uses drugs or alcohol during her pregnancy.

Homicide laws recognize the unborn as victims in 24 states. SOURCE These are states which do not restrict the development level of the fetus. In addition, 10 other states have limited fetal protection. California's has been in place since 1970, however it applies only to unborn children past "seven or eight weeks" (California Supreme Court, 1994).

So it is hardly unprecedented to protect the unborn.

It is interesting to say the least that if I kill a pregnant mother's child by beating her, I am subject to homocide laws in 34 states, but if she decides to do it (by whatever methodology) there is no consequence. I guess if a baby is wanted then it is more valued. Seem more than a little twisted to me.



Now I understand that many people do not agree with my views on this, but the legal precedent is well established.

AMEN AMLORD.

Need we discuss the fact that in many states that if a man causes a fetus harm (or death) he's prosecuted as if it was a viable life?

Only in America can we have an absolute double standard on the books, all solely so that women can claim "rights to their bodies". Frankly, if a fetus isn't a life/baby, then why would anyone ever be prosecuted for such actions? Which is it? Is the baby a life or not?

I believe they did. From both a moral and legal stand-point it is difficult to argue FOR partial birth abortions.


This really isn't a slippery slope starter. This is a completely sane law. It still allows for late-term abortions and it still makes provisions for a Mother's health concern (which are rather broad). In a lot of ways this was a hard fought battle that can easily be seen as a victory for the Pro-Abortion crowd.

Aww shucks Pro-Lifers! You got us good this time! Now we can't perform abortions on babies who still have a shin in the mother!

My guess is even the most militant Pro-Abortion person wasn't terribly interested in winning this battle.

1. Did the Supreme Court decide correctly?

Yes. I believe that they did. As much as I am for a woman's right to choose, there comes a point at which a line is crossed. This law doesn't say that this procedure is completely banned in all cases. It allows for inadvertent and accidental partial birth abortions and it allows the procedure to be used in order to save a woman's life. As with any right, with the right to choose comes responsibility and an acknowledgement, as Roe acknowledges, that there is a point at which the government can constitutionally restrict abortion.

2. What are the implications for future decisions regarding abortion law?

I don't see this case being used as a means to unnecessarily restrict abortion further. There may be procedures that are developed that are like this and may be within reach of government intervention. This law is very specific and the court deals with that specificity in its ruling. As such, it would be difficult to apply this precedent broadly to abortion.

You do not even need DNA to have your rights protected.


Not at all. Pro-choice supporters who oppose partial birth abortion for the ick factor but support the traditional abortion either don't understand abortion or don't understand pain. It seems to me that between puncturing a skull ("partial birth abortion"/D&E) and slowly being cut into pieces (dilation and curettage/D&C), puncturing a skull is less painful if pain is a real factor.


D&E is usually performed in the second trimester. What is the difference between D&C and D&E in the second trimester besides a personal distaste for the latter and an increased risk of infection/complications for the woman?

Did the Supreme Court decide correctly?
Kennedy wrote for the majority. His reasoning is utter crap. Lithwick mocks his legal inconstancies.

Basically, last decade the pro-life movement realized they were up creek without a paddle as long as they framed the abortion debate from the fetus' perspective. A majority of Americans just can't get 100% behind the idea that innocent, unviable zygotes/embryos/fetuses are as important as women. So the pro-life movement, in conjunction with some "feminists", shifted gears and zeroed in on women. The new, improved rhetoric states abortion harms every woman. Women, unable to weigh their options like responsible adults (because of our delicate condition or some kink with the second X chromosome, I can't figure out which) must have access to abortion denied for their own good. It goes without saying that invitations to congressional research hearings in support of the ban did not include women who do not regret their abortions.

This logic is the basis of Kennedy's support for the ban. According to Kennedy 1) doctors are lying to women about the procedure, and 2) "the bond of love the mother has for her child" would prevent women from having a "partial birth abortion"/D&E.

But Kennedy doesn't offer why the government can't force doctors to provide step-by-step explanations to patients about the procedure. He doesn't explain why the "the bond of love the mother has for her child" doesn't stop women from having a traditional abortion.

Lastly, Kennedy "determines that a court's factual determination about whether some procedure may be necessary to protect the mother's health can just evaporate in the face of 'medical uncertainty'. That turns both Casey and Stenberg on their heads. After today, 'medical uncertainty does not foreclose the exercise of legislative power'," but ironically, scientific uncertainty forecloses the exercise of legislative power. Kennedy has no problem siding with green members of the scientific community in Massachusetts v. EPA. (More on scientific uncertainty.)

What are the implications for future decisions regarding abortion law?
A stealth bomb on Roe. Kennedy offers a few ways to unravel Roe without directly challenging it. I mean, good gosh, if harmful-to-women works for D&E abortions, the harmful doctrine applies in D&C abortions, too.

Honestly. Roe came in with a huge bang. If conservatives are going to overturn it the least they can do is return the favor and make Roe go away with a huge bang to energize the pro-choice movement the way abortion energized the pro-life movement. Abortion is a constitutional right and should be protected in every state—or in vitro fertilization clinics, hormonal contraception, emergency contraception, embryonic stem cell research, and every medical procedure ending an unwanted pregnancy are fair game and it is up to states to legalize abortion. However, if Congress is going to get into the act passing legislation approving or disproving abortion then to hell with it, pack the Court with liberal justices. I don't want a national abortion referendum with federal statute at risk of being changed every two years.

I'm struggling with this, Lesly. Even if you don't buy that there is scientific uncertainty with regard to the health risk that partial birth abortion poses to mothers, the Act itself has a provision that allows women to have a partial birth abortion if there health is an issue.

LINK

So as I said, I don't get it. The law simply stated that if there is no health risk to the mother, a partial birth abortion cannot be performed. The law is Constitutional and follows the precedent of Roe v. Wade [not that it has to].

CP

Maybe my reading comprehension got sucked into a black hole, but when I read "This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered" I don't see how the ban allows a partial birth abortion to be performed for a health-related issue. It makes an exception for the woman's life. That's it.


Again, I don't read a health exception. The American College of Obstetricians Gynecologists and other groups opposed the ban because there is no such thing as a partial birth abortion in medical terminology, some of the procedures outlawed in the ban could be interpreted to include procedures used in D&C abortions, and there is no exception made for women's health.

Fair enough, I should have worded that better, but my point remains. Okay, so it does not make a generic "health" exception, but it does make an exception for saving the life of the mother...What part of that is illegitimate? You may not disagree with the law, but what part of that makes the law worthy of judicial nullification?

CP

Making an exception for the mother's life is no issue. In fact, Congress could never ban abortion to include saving a mother's life. Even if you believe the Constitution is silent on abortion such legislation is unconstitutional on its face.

What I object to is Congress deciding whether medical procedures necessary to preserve a patient's health merit a legislative thumb's up, especially when a significant number of health professionals argue it does. Kennedy using the pejorative label "abortion doctors" for obstetricians doesn't make the health exception any less necessary or their concerns any less valid.

But maybe I'm off the mark too, because you quoted a big section of my post and I admit I'm not sure what you're getting at...

BTW, here is the opinion.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But this is a philosophical disagreement with the law, that's not the SCOTUS' job. What law, the Constitution or otherwise does the Act actually violate? In my [and the court's opinion], the answer is none. I agree that some of Kennedy's argument was weak, but overall, I don't see any reason for the court to overturn the law.

CP

This is a little misleading. There isn't the implied gender bias that a man can go to jail but a woman doesn't for terminating a pregnancy--it's that you are terminating a pregnancy against the will of a mother. If I as a woman killed a pregnant woman, I too would be charged with double homicide.

Though frankly, I disagree with that law. I think there should be some penalty for terminating someone else's pregancy against her will and that it should be a stiff one, but it's not homicide until some line that we as a society have not yet been able to settle on (viability?).

It has been declared a right, but that right may not be as expansive as that author claims.

Rights do not automatically extend to protecting health. For example, in a home intrusion case, the homeowner must convince the jury that they felt their life was in danger, not that their health was at risk. This is an important distinction and the right of self defense has traditionally been limited to life and not property or health.

You may be surprised to learn that I agree with much of the reasoning in that link. I do believe that women have a "right" to live as they wish--until a viable other person enters the picture. The presence of this other person is fuzzy during the first few months of pregnancy and indeed one may argue that preventing pregnancy cannot be equated with ending a known, viable life. I find that such methods as the morning after pill, taken with no solid knowledge that a pregnancy has actually occurred, are not objectionable. Call me a hypocrite, but that's my stance. Once the presence of a baby is discovered and the baby becomes viable, then the parents have an obligation to their child. The practice of pulling a fully formed baby out and piercing its skull with scissors simply does not belong in a civilized society.

Since this decision does not impact the protection of life facet of the "right" to abortion, and the health aspect is not applicable to other common law rights (such as self defense), I find this decision (while perhaps poorly vocalized) to be perfectly okay.

1) No. The Supreme Court should not have accepted this on cert--no jurisdiction. They had no juris to rule in Roe. Just because our gutless Congress will not legislate on the issue does not mean the S Ct automatically should legislate on the issue, like it did in Roe with their fact-finding and three trimester policy. The only issue the court should address is whether a fetus capable of survival outside of the womb can be denied life without due process of law. If that comes before the court, it should rule, as that is a legitimate const issue.

2) Abortion is awful. Partial birth abortion is even moreso. Even those who use/support abortion should agree that at best it is a last resort. What is really sad is that in a day and age when we have myriad types of effective and safe birth control methods we have to have more than a token number of abortions for health reasons.

Medical science can keep a fetus alive outside of the womb at about 5 months now in some cases. One occurred recently. At that point, then the court will have to address the issue I framed above. If a mass murderer who is caught in the act on videotape gets due process before he can be executed, surely a sweet little child who can be kept alive outside of the womb deserves the same before his skull is crushed and his brains sucked out by a vacuum tube.

BA, I'm not going to let you select the nomenclature for this battle. Recognizing a woman's right to choose - to be in command of her own body - is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Pro-choice doesn't quite get the emoltional juices flowing as much as pro-abortion.

As a matter of precedent Kennedy does cartwheels around the health exception defined in Stenberg (2000). According to that case, if there is disagreement within the medical community the courts are supposed to err on the side of women's health. That's why Nebraska's ban was overturned. Kennedy tries convincing us (and himself, IMO) that the health exception still holds and at the same time argues uncertainty within the medical community requires courts to err on the side of the legislature.

Kennedy's objection is visceral, not legal. The public flogging he expected—and got—from Scalia and Thomas for joining O'Connor in Casey didn't discourage him from asserting abortion is a constitutional right. On the other hand if I make a states rights argument I have to reject Congress' right to tinker with abortion, especially in the area dealing with women's health, as much I object to Congress legislating the big bad Drug War. Congressional legislation into abortion needs to cover every aspect of the procedure or nothing. If anything, Congress could lay down a minimum for abortion: saving the woman's life, but not limit state legislatures. This hemming and hawing has got to go.


I'm going to sound rude (or more rude than usual) by saying this, so I apologize now. It's unfortunate you don't embrace your prerogative, your free will. It's a depressing statement. I don't know if I would call your position hypocritical, but it is as irrational as having two men push the button that delivers the legal and justified toxic cocktail to the death row inmate when one man will do. Such subversive thinking mitigates the consequences of free will and attempts to balm our conscience by divorcing knowledge from responsibility. This is disturbing to me. It is human and it is viable and it is worthy of protection or it is none of the above. Avoiding "guilty knowledge" is not ethical. Women's rights should not be circumscribed to people's ability to fool themselves into thinking what they're capable of doing isn’t all that bad. Practice your beliefs or adjust to reality.


As I already quoted the ACOG, D&E to avoid "catastrophic hemorrhage and life-threatening infection" reasonably qualifies as protecting life. Not that it makes a difference when you're already put off by the procedure.

Did the Supreme Court decide correctly?

I'm not sure how forbidding one medical procedure while permitting another, less safe one, which does the same thing is sound. It certainly fails the reasonability test, though it satisfies the political soundbit test.

The main impact will likely be on women who are pregnant with nonviable fetuses, such as anencephalic babies. This statute doesn't address such cases and forbids the procedure even if the fetus is non-viable. Third trimester abortions are prohibited in almost every state, unless the health of the mother is at risk, so those types make up a significant portion (probably the majority) of the "partial birth abortion" cases. I don't think there will be a larger impact on abortion law overall.

More accurately, he's requiring the community to err on the side of the child. And as I see it the health exception does still hold, it's just narrowed to mean the mother's life must be threatened. I don't see how this flies in the face of Nebraska, I think it just narrows it's scope to an extent.

CP

With all due respect, CP, it makes no sense to allow one medical abortion procedure as a woman's constitutional right and disallow another medical abortion procedure for the "child's" sake. Does something magical take place within the fetus when the skull breaches the vagina?

There is no health exception. If there was a health exception why would Kennedy reverse the Eight and Ninth Circuits? They found for Carhart for lack of a health exception. In spite of testimony from obstetricians giving scenarios where D&E is necessary Kennedy ignores them and flippantly offers the Court will hear direct challenges to the health exception exclusion on a case by case basis.

Yeah the "mass of cells" or "fetus" is undeniably a "baby" now, oh and it's breathing. Pretty magical.

If its a total ban on partial birth abortion regardless of circumstance then I cant agree with it and such is probably politics of a few provided to rule the many overall. I mean what if the mothers health is put in mortal danger by such, nope, cant abort, the mother has to die I guess now. What about when the parents know the fetus is horribly retarded in some fashion, and typically will only survive after birth with the aid of a great deal of medical attention, such as being born with little more then a brainstem as an example, not all birth defects manifest directly at conception or happen to be visible at this point in every stage of development. Its simply to broad at that point. I can agree to ban partial birth abortion based on the simple notion the parents or mother may not simply want to have it anymore, at that point adoption can exist, and I can support it more if the ban is rested on a scientific basis that bans abortion on the reality of when that mass of cells does indeed become something of a person, though you wont ever be able to make the magic believers happy, such as the difference of when a soul is put into the body differs from different religious perspectives but then again from inductive thought such social institutions have never been on the forefront of rational or objective reasoning really. I believe in women’s rights to have liberty, but I can see the idea that because a living human is alive in the womb at some point, that protection of such for the sake of there liberty should also exist, even if the constitution at this point I think lacks granting rights to those yet to be “born”. I mean I have sucked meconium out of a puppy before so it could breath, and care a great deal about life in general, so I to have a bias but I think mine might be at least somewhat aligned with rationality.

I would agree with this statement, but there is the provision about the procedure being acceptable if the mother's life is in danger. Whether a provision about severe danger to the mother's health should be in there also is a good question.



I agree. As Amlord pointed out, there is a huge difference between abortion during the very early stages of pregnancy, and during the very late stages of pregnancy. The later the abortion, the more severe the restrictions should be.

To answer my own questions:

1. Did the Supreme Court decide correctly?

I believe so. I'm not saying that the law, as it stands, is a particularly good one, but it seems Constitutional.

2. What are the implications for future decisions regarding abortion law?

I hope and suspect that it will be very little. Some pro-life advocates saw this as a victory; if so, it seems a very small one.

I have to hand it to the pro-life movement. They know how to frame abortion to their advantage with deceiving nomenclatures.

There is no such thing as a legal third trimester abortion without severe state restrictions. There has never been such a thing as a legal third trimester abortion without severe state restrictions since Roe. Cries of "Abortion on demand"? Completely alarmist. In the third trimester the state's interests trumps the woman's. During the second trimester it is a balancing act. And in the first trimester the state virtually has no interest in the fetus. The only thing to change after Casey that affects abortion in every trimester is the roadblocks states set up to discourage, and ironically delay women from getting the abortion sooner in the pregnancy: no funding assistance, waiting periods, counseling, administratively choking abortion providers as a business, long drives, sleeping arrangements in strange places requiring saving up more money, etc.

Prior to Gonzales v. Carhart women could not have a D&C or D&E abortion for any reason in the third trimester. There had to be a health concern. Most D&Es occur in the second trimester. Most D&Cs occur in the first trimester. Now, if the argument is dilation and extraction shouldn't occur in the second trimester for any reason, I can understand that position as long as you (generic) feel the same way about dilation and curettage. However, I doubt anyone would seriously restrict either method to include health related reasons during the second trimester, which is why this act goes overboard in my opinion, and is a clear departure from Stenberg.

1. Did the Supreme Court decide correctly?

No. Lost in all the hullaballoo over this issue is this simple point that no one seems to want to face: Can anybody point to the section of the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to legislate in this area? Especially in light of the decision in United States v Lopez, where the Court finally rediscovered the 10th Amendment after it had been all but lost for about a half-century or so, I can't possibly see how this can be considered a legitimate exercise of congressional power.

Blackstone, the argument against that is that a partial birth abortion involves a living and quite literally breathing human being. It is well within both the Constitutional and ethical scope of the Federal government [something I don't say very often] to protect a living child's life from termination.

CP

First of all, no, ordinary crime - including murder - is the responsibility of the states to handle. There's nothing in the Constitution giving Congress a general power in that sphere (except in DC, the territories, etc.). Secondly, to call this a law protecting a child's life is damn near laughable, because it only outlaws one method of taking that life. It's like saying you can't kill a child with a knife, but it's perfectly acceptable to poison his or her food with cyanide.

Wow, I really don't know how the hell I never thought about that, Blackstone, I'll be honest, you're right and I was incredibly wrong. I'm not quite sure what I was thinking . The Federal government doesn't have any legitimate authority to create a wide-spread, sweeping abortion [or any other kind of] legislation. I'm not sure just what exactly I was thinking, but good point, and you're right. The 10th Amendment would cede authority regarding this issue from the Feds to State governments or the people of those States.

CP

This is exactly why people not directly involved in the decision have no moral right to force their views on others. The procedure is only ever used in cases where severe health problems occur late in the pregnancy, but hooray for forcing women to cripple themselves and possibly die bringing children with birth defects into the world. After all, women are nothing but incubators anyway, right conservatives?

1. Did the Supreme Court decide correctly?

I am anti abortion and I still think this ruling is wrong. In situations where one, or both are going to die we have the ablity to save the one who can be saved. Logic dictates if the mother cannot survive to carry the child to term, then the child will not live either way. In such case we should be able to save the mother. If the child is sufficiently developed at the time, however, for both to survive an early labor and delivery then such should not be an option however.

In such other cases where the child will be permanantly on life support, for example, the decision should be viewed as the same as if it were a "living will" for a child that had already been born that is in the same situation, with the parents effectivly having the right to terminate life support.


2. What are the implications for future decisions regarding abortion law?

I think the surrounding arguements and circumstances are too broad in scope. I would hope that abortion outside of a medical emergency as a whole would be banned.

The hipocracy of the abortion laws in the first place should serve as grounds for change. If a driver runs a stop light and hits another car being driven by a pregnant woman on her way to have an abortion and the unborn child dies as a result, the driver is charged with murdering the unborn child, then why not the doctor, who would have done so the same day? Yet if I make an arguement to defend the drivers innosence it would be shot down in an instant.

Most times abortion is simply nothing more than that. A mother to be trying to excuse herself from the consequences of a mistake.

Yes, a woman has the right to choose - among a variety of birth control devices including abstinance (100% effective people) but once a child is concieved it is, even scientifically, another human being and therefore should have the same rights as any other american, including the right to life.

The one grey area I have is rape, my views on the right to life of an unborn child, and my understanding of the victim, they weren't given a choice.

First off, we must separate the actual enumerated powers from the powers that the federal government has assumed over time. In that context, the feds have some jurisdiction in the area of health care. We have the FDA, we have the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (forcing hospitals to pay for the emergency care of everyone and forcing companies to offer COBRA health care coverage), we have Medicare (taxing people to pay for the care of seniors), we have the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), we have federal laws making marijuana illegal which fly in the face of state laws.

In fact, I can't remember the last time the USSC said "Congress does not have the power to legislate in this area" (any area).

You are certainly correct that the federal power over "common" crimes is limited to interstate crimes (drugs and kidnapping are two common ones) or ones that occur within federal jurisdictions (territories and the District). Unfortunately, the USSC forgot that long ago--hate crimes, health care benefit crimes, racketeering crimes?

The federal government has reserved the right to dictate what medical procedures are valid and what medicines can and cannot be used. It determines what medical devices are permitted to be used. The FDA has an entire page devoted to laws it governs.

It is unfortunate, but this line of reasoning doesn't hold water in today's federal government.

Grendel, I think it is a little shortsighted and unfair to blame conservative for the fact that nature has made females incubators. It's not like they actually called God/Mother Nature and said,
"Yeah the females, that's right, the ones with the breast that can produce milk should give birth. Oh and while you're at it, go ahead and make the rest of the animal kingdom the same way."

1. Did the Supreme Court decide correctly?

Yes

2. What are the implications for future decisions regarding abortion law?

Not much in my opinion. Look, if the women's life is in jeopardy, as I read the situation, a doctor can still perform a C-section correct?? A doctor can still induce labor correct?? So all this hooplah about not caring for a women's health is ridiculous.

What some people really want to say is that a women should be able to stop the fact that she will be a mother at any stage of the preganancy, even when the fetus could be born and incubated to a baby.

Three months is plenty of time for a woman to decide whether she wishes to go forward or not.

By the way, Aevans brings up a good point, why is it homicide to kill unborn baby and yet abortion is legal??

So you'd be fine with it if the law demanded the most invasive possible medical action be taken for any medical emergency you might face?
Broken arm? Amputate!

Because ever since Roe v. Wade, anti-abortion activists have been getting moe and more laws on the books regarding the life of the unborn. (Not all mind you, some of these laws have been on the books for decades)

That way they have the ability to cite the laws dealing with 'unborn murder' on the books that they put there and say things like 'why is it homicide to kill unborn baby and yet abortion is legal??' Some people have been watching and writing on what they call the 'long term siege against women's rights to abortion' with just these kinds of laws.

You are a very interesting poster...

Can you please cite an example or two where a partial birth abortion is the only option to save the mother's life? What are the medial situations that abortion is the best medical response to? (There are several this isn't a truck question.) Perhaps you could cite how many partial birth abortions happen in the US yearly.

I think that is likely so. Laws against "homicide of the unborn" are state laws. Not every state prosecutes the person who injures a fetus as though it were a homicide. In fact, this wasn't even the case in Texas when I lived there in the early nineties (though it is now apparently). I personally knew a woman who lost a pregnancy this way at that time. Another woman punched her in the stomach, not knowing that she was a few months along in a pregnancy and this caused her to miscarry shortly after. The issue was certainly never raised. It was also only very recently that the federal government enacted a law "protecting the unborn" on federal property as well.

Now, the USSC upheld a law that one medical procedure cannot be performed, even if the mother's health is at risk and the fetus nonviable. I'm really curious where they will go with this. A large part of the argument against Roe was based on the observation that the USSC was overstepping its bounds by interfering with state law. I thought this argument was solid myself, though I do support the right to an early abortion (or even a late one on a catastrophically impaired/nonviable fetus that is causing health problems for the mother, as would be the case with a third trimester pregnancy).

Overturning Roe doesn't bother me, but offering a constitutionally protected status to the fetus does. I simply think the consequences wouldn't make that feasible so I don't believe it will happen. In this particular case, I'd say Grendel's metaphor is accurate. The federal government hasn't banned abortion on late pregnancies (I'm not sure they can because it would require the interests of the fetus supercede those of the mother, and in this case very often a nonviable fetus), they are just making them more dangerous. Truly ridiculous.

Very good point.


Grendal


Not a very good point.

I can think of no reason that abortion will save the woman, but removing the fetus from the body would not. Can you???

If my arm is broke I don't tell the doctor to amputate, but I don't tell him how to put the pins in either or how to make the splint to give me the quickest recovery time.

First of all, "partial birth abortion" is a purely political term. Intact dilation and extraction is often necessary in cases of extreme hydrocephalus, and late term miscarriages. the safety advantages of intact dilatation and evacuation (intact D&E) procedures are widely recognized—in medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, clinical practice, and in mainstream, medical care in the United States
We're talking about a rare procedure, Late-term abortions account for only .08 percent of the 1.3 million abortions that take place in this country every year. Most of that .08 percent are done to protect the life of the mother, so they are not affected by the Court’s ruling. a rare procedure undertaken in cases where the fetus is very unlikely to survive outside of the womb, and very likely to kill it's mother in the birth process.

Yes, it's a tragedy, and a gruesome process. It is not a tragedy for anyone to co-opt, though. Especially not in light of their demonizing of the people actually going through the tragedy.

Grendal from your link we see.



Again am I missing the issue?? in those case where the mother life is so endangered they can go before a judge and be allowed the procedure.

Are you debating from a health standpoint, or a "women should be able to do what they want" standpoint.

I can remember limits on the commerce clause, though. U.S. v. Morrison (2000), Congress does not have authority to enact the Violence Against Women Act under the Fourteenth Amendment and commerce cause. United States v. Lopez (1995), Congress does not have the authority to bar individuals from carrying concealed weapons under the commerce clause. Doubtless the PBA Ban is based on the commerce clause. Is this the first time Congress enacts an abortion bill based on the clause?


There are two ways they could overturn abortion. They can stop with Roe, or they can stop at Griswold. If they stop with Roe, at least the states can legalize abortion (or not). I've always been afraid of the slim chance the Court would stop at Griswold, however. It may not have much of an impact on states, where most state constitutions already have privacy provisions, but I can see this administration or a McCain administration or a Giuliani administration picking up the ball and flying with it.

Glad you've done a little research on the topic.

This "win" is about the worst "win" the Pro-Lifers could have possibly hoped for. They "won" a ban on a procedure that next to never happens. When it did happen there were very specific reasons to perform it and those reasons are still valid reasons to legally perform this procedure. So what precisely did the Pro-Lifer's win? That's right they passed a law that bans nothing. Points for them and their voters - who coincidentally were voting for them no matter what anyway...

You, however, continue to bleat "slippery slope" noise and further energize the Pro-Lifers until the day they finally get enough people to overturn Roe V Wade. Instead of comparing abortion to broken arms you should sit back, smugly, and know that nothing has been accomplished by the Pro-Lifers. Then whenever they complain that there's still abortion point to Partial Birth Abortion and say, "Geez you won that one what MORE do you want?"

Are you kidding? It was a huge political victory. By framing even .08% of abortions as a "perfectly healthy baby about to be given birth during a perfectly healthy pregnancy" and getting even Democrats behind the ban at least informs pro-life activists they're on to something. Legislatures who passed the PBA ban based on the rightness of their feelings (never mind the logical inconsistency of allowing D&C abortion) are just as likely to "inform" women seeking abortions about fetal pain based on the same gut feelings. Look at all the misconceptions the derogatory label "partial birth abortion" has generated in this thread alone. This is nothing to sneeze at.

Not to mention sure, I've been mocking the practical effects of the ban in this thread all along, but I also give a damn about these exceptional cases requiring exceptional care.

Both. Do you honestly think our overburdened court system is going to decide in individual cases what emergency procedure a doctor should use in a timely manner?
Elective late term abortion is already illegal. This decision is entirely about narrowing it down from protecting women's health to saying it's only allowed to protect their lives. We're not even talking about protecting babies since those this procedure would be used for will not survive out of the womb. the same mindset that leads "pro-life" organizations to, for example, declare the state with the worst infant mortality rate in the US “the safest place in America for an unborn child.”

O.K. So you feel that the Supreme court should not have upheld a ban that is similar to legislature already out there that makes partial birth illegal in late trimesters without a women life endangered??

At what point did you start thinking "The sky is falling??" You provide statisitics that these abortions are rare, highly improbable, and already illegal.

Yet when asked when asked did the Supreme Court make the right decision your answer is..... "no"

It's a bit like the semantic "game" I played with phrase Pro-Abortion. That was intentional and I managed to tick off at least one person with it... the point is, of course NO ONE is Pro Abortion. To some extent you're right about framing the debate. However, it's virtually impossible to be Pro Choice and frame the argument to your benefit. Mother's Health! Well, of course dear - that's why we made provisions for that.

The truth is there are people, like Grendel, fighting this sort of thing tooth and nail and it's pointless. Even if Grendel remains Pro-Choice for the rest of its days (I don't know Grendel's sex) it doesn't matter. Others who are Pro Choice will at some point have children and suddenly become Pro Life. They will hold their baby in their arms and NEVER be able to understand how anyone could EVER abort a baby. Forever, for them, there will be no fetus, only a baby so any abortion will be "murder". When you get into late term abortions this is exacerbated by fact. It is a baby. This switch over will and has happened in far larger swings than Pro Lifer's turning Pro Choice.

Again, no one really likes abortion. The callous trollop having 12 abortions a year so she can be loose morally is about as statistically insignificant as Partial Birth Abortions, probably even less!

Abortion is often the last of many bad decisions.

*edited to make this make sense!

I think playing semantic games with people facing extreme hardship is disgusting. So it's a rare procedure, and most often still legal because it is generally used when the mother's life is in danger. does that mean we should just sacrifice those women who will be in a position to need it to protect their health? Do you want politicians second guessing doctors where the line between protecting someone's health and their life is (something that can change rapidly in emergency situations)?

Do you know there is no provision in this ban for the mother’s health, or do you think, as ConservPat does, that there is a health provision?


Some will, undoubtedly, but there are also plenty of mothers (and fathers) who don’t regret their decisions or their support. Do you have some statistics? This sounds like the theory that the older you get, the more conservative you become, which I don’t believe is correct.


Again I question your reasoning. South Dakota voters overturning last year’s most stringent abortion ban is significant because South Dakota was one of the states with a complete ban on abortion prior to Roe.

2. What are the implications for future decisions regarding abortion law?

I think women should be appalled. I heard something interesting about the paternalistic language of Justice Kennedy in the opinion. I looked up the decision. I think the following words are disgraceful.



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

What did we expect? John Roberts and Samuel Alito, two white, male, conservative justices have joined Antonin Scalia, another white, male, conservative Catholic justice and Clarence Thomas, a black male Catholic conservative.

Anthony Kennedy, generally considered more moderate, but still a white male Catholic has fallen in line rather quickly. Bingo an abortion ruling from the majority Catholic block. While I believe in the Constitution's provision of "no religious test" and freedom of people to worship as they choose, I do not think any religious group should control the United States Supreme Court.

The high court needs to be more balanced - three or four more women, another black, a couple of atheists and/or agnostics, at least one Hispanic and a couple of less Catholics.

Bush has unbalanced the court. While I think Franklin Roosevelt’s court packing plan was a bad idea, I would support Democrats rebalancing things if they get the power. Bush has given us the unthinkable.

To answer your question, expect more of the same.

But this isn't even about choice. It's about women's health.
We aren't talking about elective abortion at all, but about women who chose to carry their baby to term and things went terribly wrong. We're talking about women who lost children they wanted and chose the procedure least likely to affect their chances of conceiving again.

BTW, if you look on the left side of your monitor you'll note that the gender of posters is listed.