Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 29

Thread: Justices uphold ban on abortion procedure

  1. #1
    Hit By Ban Bus! AliceInWonderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    you already know.
    Posts
    44,442

    Angry Justices uphold ban on abortion procedure

    Justices uphold ban on abortion procedure

    Story Highlights

    5-4 ruling could open door to revisiting Roe v. Wade
    • Justice Kennedy: Law does not violate constitutional right to abortion
    • New justices Alito, Roberts provided solid conservative majority to uphold ban
    • Federal law has never gone into effect pending court rulings
    By Bill Mears
    CNN Washington Bureau
    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a law that banned a type of late-term abortion, a ruling that could portend enormous social, legal and political implications for the divisive issue.

    The sharply divided 5-4 ruling could prove historic. It sends a possible signal of the court's willingness, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to someday revisit the basic right to abortion guaranteed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.

    President Bush, who signed the law in 2003 and appointed two of the justices who upheld it, said the prohibition "represents a commitment to building a culture of life in America."

    "Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America," he said in a statement released by the White House.

    At issue is the constitutionality of a federal law banning a rarely performed type of abortion carried out in the middle-to-late second trimester.

    The legal sticking point was that the law lacked a "health exception" for a woman who might suffer serious medical complications, something the justices have said in the past is necessary when considering abortion restrictions.

    In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key swing vote in these divided appeals, said the federal law "does not have the effect of imposing an unconstitutional burden on the abortion right." He was joined by his fellow conservatives, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Roberts.

    Sole woman on bench reads bitter dissent

    In a bitter dissent read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the high court, said the majority's opinion "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court, and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."

    She called the ruling "alarming" and noted the conservative majority "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases" by doctor's groups, including gyncecologists.


    The Justice Department and abortion rights groups have offered differing views of the legislation's impact on women's overall second trimester access to the procedure, and whether the procedure is ever medically necessary.

    This was the first time the high court had heard a major abortion case in six years, and since then, its makeup has changed, with Roberts and Alito now on board.

    Their presence on the bench provided the solid conservative majority needed to allow the federal ban to go into effect, with Kennedy providing the key fifth vote for a majority.

    Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor, a key abortion rights supporter over her quarter century on the bench.

    "A lot of us wish that Alito weren't there and O'Connor were there," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who opposed Alito's nomination, said.

    Doctors call this type of late-term abortion an "intact dilation and evacuation." Abortion foes term it a "partial-birth abortion."

    Three federal appeals courts had ruled against the government, saying the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is unconstitutional because it does not provide a "health exception" for pregnant women facing a medical emergency. The outcome of this latest challenge before the court's new ideological makeup could turn on the legal weight given past rulings on the health exception.

    In states where such exceptions are allowed, the lists of possible health risks include severe blood loss, damage to vital organs and loss of fertility. Court briefs noted pregnant women having the procedure most often have their health threatened by cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure or risk of stroke. Doctors are given the discretion to recommend when the late-term procedure should be performed.

    The federal law has never gone into effect, pending the outcome of nearly three years of legal appeals.

    Specifically, the ban encompasses what doctors call "intact dilation and evacuation" (also known as IDX), which Congress in its legislation termed inhumane.

    It is a rarely used second-trimester procedure, designed to reduce complications to the woman. More common is "dilation and evacuation" (D&E), used in 95 percent of pre-viability second-trimester abortions, according to Planned Parenthood. Both are generally performed after the 21st week of pregnancy.

    A major part of the legal dispute was whether the federal ban also includes the relatively more common "standard D&E abortions." The government contends the law does not, and is sufficiently narrow not to place an "undue burden" on a woman's reproductive choices.

    Raw numbers were also at the heart of the debate, because the two sides disagreed on how often the procedure is performed. Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Justice Department's top lawyer before the court, suggested it is rarely performed, and that other medical options are available, so banning it would therefore not be a real barrier to women.

    Abortions rights supporters say "intact" abortions are a medically accepted pre-viability, second-trimester procedure.

    Since the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, some states have tried to place restrictions and exceptions on access to the procedure, prompting a string of high court "clarifications" on the issue over the years.



    Find this article at:
    Justices uphold ban on abortion procedure - CNN.com
    Fuck Bush; fuck conservative morons; and apparantly fuck a woman who's health might be seriously and negatively affected by the full-term birth of a baby she's carrying *angry sarcasm*!

  2. #2
    Hit By Ban Bus! AliceInWonderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    you already know.
    Posts
    44,442

    Default


  3. #3
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    you're turning blue in the face, alice.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  4. #4
    Hit By Ban Bus! AliceInWonderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    you already know.
    Posts
    44,442

    Default

    Hillary '08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Last edited by AliceInWonderland; April 19th, 2007 at 12:39 PM.

  5. #5
    Elite Member Just Kill Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    sucking on a blow pop and playing with electrodes
    Posts
    15,550

    Default

    They'll have to kill me before they can take away my trusty rusty coat hanger.

  6. #6
    Elite Member Picara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AliceInWonderland View Post
    Hillary '08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    I saw this big Escalade with a bumper sticker that said "Abort Hillary!" Disgusting. Ugh, it made me so mad. For one thing it was at my kids' school and I had to explain "abort" to an eight and nine year old. Another thing, if I had put an "Abort Bush" on my car, it would be bombed. I live behind the Orange Curtain in Orange County.

    I've been hearing some political analysts say she doesn't have a chance of winning. I hope they're wrong.

  7. #7
    Hit By Ban Bus! AliceInWonderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    you already know.
    Posts
    44,442

    Default

    ^ yeah that sucks. We need her bad there; I just hope she doesn't let us down; I dont think she will b/c she knows whats at stake but you never know what might happen. I think Bill would be the best first First Husband too

  8. #8
    Elite Member Picara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AliceInWonderland View Post
    ^ yeah that sucks. We need her bad there; I just hope she doesn't let us down; I dont think she will b/c she knows whats at stake but you never know what might happen. I think Bill would be the best first First Husband too
    I know. I'm really excited about her running. I'm going to get my own bumper sticker to piss off all the Repug soccer moms at my kids' school. ha ha.

  9. #9
    Elite Member DoveFeatheredRaven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,080

    Default

    I am not sure Hillary is electable though. Dems need to win and I think the best chances of that are an Edwards/Obama ticket.

  10. #10
    Hit By Ban Bus! AliceInWonderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    you already know.
    Posts
    44,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Picara View Post
    I know. I'm really excited about her running. I'm going to get my own bumper sticker to piss off all the Repug soccer moms at my kids' school. ha ha.
    HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  11. #11
    Elite Member darksithbunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,543

    Default

    I honestly don't see anything wrong with it. They are talking about late term meaning if you didn't have the abortion before that time then too fucking bad, you are gonna be a mother. I mean c'mon! It would be able to live at that point! Now that I would consider to be murder.

  12. #12
    Hit By Ban Bus! AliceInWonderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    you already know.
    Posts
    44,442

    Default

    well if its going to save the mothers life (again the article says that this is "rare") then i have to side w/ the mother having that choice. Its all about the right to choose; not saying yes you must do it; its the choice factor. If she doesn't want to risk her life for birth than she should have that right to save her life imo.

  13. #13
    Elite Member darksithbunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,543

    Default

    True. But most people know if getting pregnant is going to put their life in danger, that would probably be the last thing they would be doing.

  14. #14
    Elite Member Just Kill Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    sucking on a blow pop and playing with electrodes
    Posts
    15,550

    Default

    A blackish man will be president before a woman...

  15. #15
    Hit By Ban Bus! AliceInWonderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    you already know.
    Posts
    44,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darksithbunny View Post
    True. But most people know if getting pregnant is going to put their life in danger, that would probably be the last thing they would be doing.
    ok but what if you didnt know that beforehand or some freak incident happens, like a hole in your heart is discovered? I'm just saying that the choice should be there for you and that once things like this are taken away; they will try to take more and more away and it ain't right! No one should tell you what you can and cant do with your own body and your health should always be in your own hand ... i believe.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Is Jennifer Lopez getting more in vitro procedure?
    By moomies in forum Gossip Archive
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: November 27th, 2006, 02:36 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 9th, 2006, 09:59 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 17th, 2006, 01:01 PM
  4. New Sex Procedure That Has Women Gasping
    By Elvira in forum Plastic Surgery
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: March 16th, 2006, 08:57 PM
  5. Justices to Weigh Late-Term Abortion Ban
    By deckchick in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 21st, 2006, 04:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •