Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions

AMosely · 04-18-2007, 01:39 PM

It just keeps coming this week - figure we may as well have a thread for this too. Looks like Bush's gamble on Alito and Roberts is paying off. Looks like women and Ob/Gyn's seem to be losing out to religion and morality in this country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYTimes

The justices ruled, 5 to 4, that a law passed by Congress in 2003 and signed by President Bush does not violate the Constitution by imposing an undue burden on a woman’s right to end a pregnancy. The majority said its ruling reflects the government’s “legitimate, substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life.”

The majority said that the 2003 law would not affect most abortions, which are performed early in a pregnancy; that the law does not encourage “arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement,” and that alternatives to the prohibited procedure are available. Justice Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the majority decision “alarming” and a retreat from the court’s earlier holdings. “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,” Justice Ginsburg wrote, in a dissent joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer.

**RandomGuy** · 04-18-2007, 01:50 PM

A rundown of the changes made by the new law is needed.

Zoraster · 04-18-2007, 02:22 PM

Roberts, not Edwards. Anyway, i wouldn't exactly call them gambles.

Kerostasis · 04-18-2007, 02:30 PM

It takes a strong mind to interpret this as "women losing out", Mosely.

Lucky Shot · 04-18-2007, 02:34 PM

Interesting cultural change happening among UK doctors.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ons/article.do

Lucky Shot

AMosely · 04-18-2007, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

It takes a strong mind to interpret this as "women losing out", Mosely.

I guess I have a strong mind then. Women and their doctors are having a choice taken away from them - they are 'losing out.' No one ever wants to have or decide on a late-term abortion, but that doesn't mean the government needs to intervene and make them illegal. Furthermore, such a law would only serve to make the practice go underground and become more barbaric and unsafe.

I also want to point out that this is one area where conservatives and liberals switch sides - conservatives are all for government control of private matters here. Liberals believe the government should keep off. What's interesting to me is that it clearly illustrates the true motivations (albiet concentrated) of both groups.

Lucky Shot · 04-18-2007, 03:46 PM

The thing is those women did have a choice when they voted for their legislators to represent them. I much prefer a situation where the voters have indirect control than activist judges who legislate from the bench and the voters having no say whatsoever. That's a law that can change if they want it to at their state level.

Lucky Shot

**leejo** · 04-18-2007, 03:52 PM

*cough* when I started the perfectly legal thread about the child born a few days before the legal limit to have had it aborted the "close-the-thread-we've-gone-over-all-of-this-before" birds started chirping.

I trust they'll start chirping again, and fast, since this is the same subject. *cough*

Kerostasis · 04-18-2007, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

I also want to point out that this is one area where conservatives and liberals switch sides - conservatives are all for government control of private matters here. Liberals believe the government should keep off. What's interesting to me is that it clearly illustrates the true motivations (albiet concentrated) of both groups.

Thats a significant mischaracterization.

Conservatives aren't requesting government control of a "private matter", they are requesting limits on the ability of humans to kill other humans, which is a fairly standard area where government intervention is seen to be important.

Liberals are in fact perfectly happy for the government to get its hands on the issue. They want the government to ensure mamixum possible propagation of abortion in all forms, even to the extent of paying for it and limiting dissemination of information on alternate paths.

Partial-birth abortion involves...well...partially birthing a completely viable baby, and then killing it rather than removing it entirely from the womb. It is a proceedure with no redeeming features, and what you are asking is not just that it should be conceptually possible or legal, but that this should be a constitutionally protected RIGHT that no one can possibly interefere with. This ruling does not ban partial birth abortions, rather it simply makes them subject to the law, which until recently they were not.

Steeler · 04-18-2007, 04:09 PM

The majority said its ruling reflects the government’s “legitimate, substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life.”
This is probably the most significant line, which is why the Times quoted it. I'm not entirely sure what "fetal life" is, as distinct from human life or life in general, or why government has an interest in it. Promote fetal life? "Join the lifestyle - become a fetus today!" Preserve fetal life? "Quick, don't let them out - keep them in there as long as possible!"

Watch for this phrase to become the talking point of anti-choice for the next few years. The states have effectively been given the signal to start experimenting with restricting abortion, especially if they use some roundabout soft-language tactics that, while not outlawing the practice outright, address this "substantial interest" with de facto obstacles to getting the procedure done.

This debate will never be settled. You either believe its murder or you don't.

Oh, and welcome back to the Sandbox, leejo.

thebleakaffinity · 04-18-2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Conservatives aren't requesting government control of a "private matter", they are requesting limits on the ability of humans to kill other humans

*the ability of a woman to expel a parasite from her body

E-Male · 04-18-2007, 04:26 PM

"they are requesting limits on the ability of humans to kill other humans"

Good grief, this is a terrible insult to every woman who has had to make an impossible choice.

Kerostasis · 04-18-2007, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thebleakaffinity

*the ability of a woman to expel a parasite from her body

No no, if you simply want to expel it, you can expel it alive just fine. The legal limit is on killing it. I'm glad to know you think so highly of us "parasites", by the way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-Male

"they are requesting limits on the ability of humans to kill other humans"

Good grief, this is a terrible insult to every woman who has had to make an impossible choice.

Don't tell me whether its insulting or not. Tell me whether its true or not. Every moral judgment you could possibly make is probably insulting to those who have committed the act in question, but that does not universally prevent us from making judgments.

Obi · 04-18-2007, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thebleakaffinity

*the ability of a woman to expel a parasite from her body

I hope you are joking. I am not a parasite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-Male

Good grief, this is a terrible insult to every woman who has had to make an impossible choice.

I think babies are alive before they are born. So from my perspective the choice between killing a baby and not killing one is a very simple one to make. Maybe if the mother and child were both facing death it would be a different matter but from what I gather oftentimes this is not the case.

**WhiskeySix** · 04-18-2007, 04:43 PM

Everyone has to draw the line somewhere. When is ok to kill/expel the baby/paracite? Until it can 'survive' birth? As long as it's still in the womb? As long as it's less than 50% 'out'? Until the umbilical is cut?

Just curious where pro-choice folks stand on that. I happen to be in some weird middle ground between pro-life and pro-choice and believe the first (until it can survive). After witnessing two full births, the notion of partial birth abortion is nauseating to me.

04-18-2007, 01:50 PM	#2 (permalink)
RandomGuy Join Date: May 2003 Location: K-W, Ont. Age: 27 Posts: 1,715	Re: Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions A rundown of the changes made by the new law is needed.

04-18-2007, 02:22 PM	#3 (permalink)
Zoraster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Los Angeles Age: 23 Posts: 1,325	Re: Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions Roberts, not Edwards. Anyway, i wouldn't exactly call them gambles. __________________ \|TG\| Zoraster \| Tactical Soccer Managing

04-18-2007, 02:34 PM	#5 (permalink)
Lucky Shot Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,636	Re: Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions Interesting cultural change happening among UK doctors. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ons/article.do Lucky Shot

04-18-2007, 03:46 PM	#7 (permalink)
Lucky Shot Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,636	Re: Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions The thing is those women did have a choice when they voted for their legislators to represent them. I much prefer a situation where the voters have indirect control than activist judges who legislate from the bench and the voters having no say whatsoever. That's a law that can change if they want it to at their state level. Lucky Shot

04-18-2007, 03:52 PM	#8 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,524	Re: Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions cough when I started the perfectly legal thread about the child born a few days before the legal limit to have had it aborted the "close-the-thread-we've-gone-over-all-of-this-before" birds started chirping. I trust they'll start chirping again, and fast, since this is the same subject. cough

04-18-2007, 04:09 PM	#10 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,925	Re: Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions The majority said its ruling reflects the government’s “legitimate, substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life.” This is probably the most significant line, which is why the Times quoted it. I'm not entirely sure what "fetal life" is, as distinct from human life or life in general, or why government has an interest in it. Promote fetal life? "Join the lifestyle - become a fetus today!" Preserve fetal life? "Quick, don't let them out - keep them in there as long as possible!" Watch for this phrase to become the talking point of anti-choice for the next few years. The states have effectively been given the signal to start experimenting with restricting abortion, especially if they use some roundabout soft-language tactics that, while not outlawing the practice outright, address this "substantial interest" with de facto obstacles to getting the procedure done. This debate will never be settled. You either believe its murder or you don't. Oh, and welcome back to the Sandbox, leejo. __________________

04-18-2007, 04:26 PM	#12 (permalink)
E-Male Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Ottawa Age: 45 Posts: 857	Re: Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions "they are requesting limits on the ability of humans to kill other humans" Good grief, this is a terrible insult to every woman who has had to make an impossible choice. __________________ E-Male

04-18-2007, 04:43 PM	#15 (permalink)
WhiskeySix Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Gillette Stadium, Section 309, Row 12, Seat 24 Age: 33 Posts: 8,008	Re: Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions Everyone has to draw the line somewhere. When is ok to kill/expel the baby/paracite? Until it can 'survive' birth? As long as it's still in the womb? As long as it's less than 50% 'out'? Until the umbilical is cut? Just curious where pro-choice folks stand on that. I happen to be in some weird middle ground between pro-life and pro-choice and believe the first (until it can survive). After witnessing two full births, the notion of partial birth abortion is nauseating to me. __________________

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links