Supreme court to mull partial-birth abortion bans

[Grimmlok]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would expand its review of a federal law banning some abortion procedures and would decide a California case on whether the law was too vague and imposed a burden on women.

The justices in February agreed to rule on a Nebraska case on whether the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception to protect the health of a pregnant woman.

The California case involved additional issues on whether the law imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to seek an abortion and whether it is unconstitutionally vague. A U.S. appeals court declared the law unconstitutional and upheld an injunction barring its enforcement.

Both cases will be decided in the upcoming term that begins in October. The law represents the first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure since the Supreme Court's landmark 1973 ruling that women have a constitutional right to abortion.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsar...src=rss&rpc=22

[DirtyPool]

The mean-faced feminazi's who are the backbone of the pro-choice movement from hell - will never stop until they destroy all roots of the traditional family. I hate them so very deeply.

[Grimmlok]

You must hate the gays too, with all their destruction of the 'traditional' family.

Frankly, I don't see how abortion has anything to do with the "traditional" family. Abortion has been around since the beginnings of human civilization, so I assume by your comment that you'd like us to revert back into cavemen?

[DirtyPool]

I'm not denying the role abortion has had throughout civilization but that argument does not hold up in 2006 where there is free everything if you scream loud enough. Why should a women disrespect her body in this way and murder her baby when she has so many alternatives in this day in age?

i don't "hate the gays". no sir, no sir. They should have the same rights as I do. Not an issue.

[Grimmlok]

Abortion may have had a role throughout civilization but that argument does not hold up in 2006 where there is free everything if you scream loud enough.

Actually, it does hold up. Abortion HAS been around, not may have been, for thousands of years. What's changed now? Nothing, really. It still comes down to CHOICE, and some would rather that choice be taken away.

Why should a women disrespect her body in this way and murder her baby when she has so many alternatives in this day in age?

What business is it of yours, or anybody elses? It's her body to do with as she wants. The second you start legislating what someone can do to their own person, is the day you interfere too much.

i don't "hate the gays". no sir, no sir. They should have the same rights as I do. Not an issue.

Interesting, since they've been accused by the same groups as being the prime enemy of the "traditional family"

[DirtyPool]

^My definition of a traditional family is two parents who support a household with children.

[Grimmlok]

Well, i'd conclude that as adults these 2 people are perfectly capable of being in charge of their own bodies.

[Lobelia]

Butchering a baby that is capable of sustaining life, just because it's not all the way OUT yet, is murder.

[Grimmlok]

Allowing a woman to die because her "baby" is causing pregnancy complications isn't?

[Lobelia]

It's a bad thing all around. If there are conditions like you describe, I don't know about them. I've never said I know everything or could foresee every situation, but yeah, if somebody's gotta die, then of course the mother should live. Duh, if she dies, the baby dies anyway. But are we really talking about every situation being one of life or death for the mother?

ETA: And I don't know why you put "baby" in quotes, because aren't we talking about a viable fetus here? It's just a matter of location. It can live either in or out of the womb. Why on earth wouldn't it be a baby? And if the baby is risking the mother's life, but it could live outside the womb, why not just take it out & let it live?

[Grimmlok]

Because legally, it isn't.

[Lobelia]

And the law is always right?

And I repeat: And if the baby is risking the mother's life, but it could live outside the womb, why not just take it out & let it live?

[Grimmlok]

Nope, but as it stands, that's the definition we're given to use.

[Lobelia]

Again: if the baby is risking the mother's life, but it could live outside the womb, why not just take it out & let it live?

[Grimmlok]

Whynot let the woman who's carrying it decide, considering it's her choice?