Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

[rosewaning]

[link]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long- awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

...

 

[Paulos23]

It is worth noting that this is a ban on one procedure and not all abortions. That being said, I really don't see why the ban on this procedure. But I think Bush had to show his supporters that he was doing something on abortions.

 

[levi501]

Ginsburg said the latest decision "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."

This is what happens when our nations top court is tainted by conservative/religious zealotry.

 

[gengwall]

This decision is not a surprise.

Anyone know if the opinions are online anywhere yet? They aren't on the SCOTUS site.

 

[rosewaning]

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/05-380_All.pdf

 

[gengwall]

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/05-380_All.pdf

Cool. Thanks!

 

[DieHappy]

Ginsburg said the latest decision "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."

This is what happens when our nations top court is tainted by conservative/religious zealotry.

Right. Because shadows and penumbraes weren't zealotry at all.

 

[gengwall]

Ginsburg said the latest decision "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."

This is what happens when our nations top court is tainted by conservative/religious zealotry.

Frankly, I think Ginsburg's dissent carries the day from an argument standpoint IMO.

 

[levi501]

Right. Because shadows and penumbraes weren't zealotry at all.

Only if you equate exercising reason with fanaticism.

 

[Texas Lynn]

The ruling will do nothing to change the amount of abortions performed, merely the method of procedure. A bone thrown to the right wing extremists which actually does nothing, IOW. Good.

 

[Monica02]

The ruling will do nothing to change the amount of abortions performed, merely the method of procedure. A bone thrown to the right wing extremists which actually does nothing, IOW. Good.

The partial birth controversy has began to make the public aware of the horrors of abortion. This is soemething. If this ban will do nothing than why are the pro-aborts so opposed to it?

 

[DieHappy]

There are those of us who, when we have a medical problem, want to consult an educated doctor, not a political official.

So you're against the government being involved in health care then?

 

[DieHappy]

I'm glad we agree that socialized medicine would be a terrible thing.

 

[Texas Lynn]

The partial birth controversy has began to make the public aware of the horrors of abortion.

Actually the antis took a rarely used procedure and deceived many into thinking it was the most common method.

This is soemething. If this ban will do nothing than why are the pro-aborts so opposed to it?

Because basically it's nobody's business but the woman's and the medical staff's.

 

[flicka]

I really wonder how many people actually thought this makes late term abortions illegal. Most I'll bet. What this does is ban one method....leaving other, more gruesome, methods alone. I never could understand why people got so up in arms over this but I see now it's because they were completely ignorant on the subject.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm glad we agree that socialized medicine would be a terrible thing.

I'd be in debt my whole life if Australia didn't have socialized medicine... I really don't understand some Americans attitude towards it, if small, poorer countries like Australia and Sweden can afford it, why would the richest most powerful nation in the world have any problems?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I'd be in debt my whole life if Australia didn't have socialized medicine... I really don't understand some Americans attitude towards it, if small, poorer countries like Australia and Sweden can afford it, why would the richest most powerful nation in the world have any problems?

I must confess to a similar lack of understanding. Why are some Americans so opposed to it? Every single argument I've ever seen against it is defeated by even a cursory look at places like Canada and Australia where they have it. Is it just the idea that it's a sneaking form of socialism?

 

[happygrl35]

The partial birth controversy has began to make the public aware of the horrors of abortion. This is soemething. If this ban will do nothing than why are the pro-aborts so opposed to it?

Because it makes necessary late term abortions more risky for the woman.It isn't going to "save a fetuses life" it's only putting the womans health at risk. So much for 'pro-life'

 

[JohnLocke]

Couple of points.

1. It was "penumbras and emanations" rather than "shadows"
2. We don't really know what the decision was until it's published, because that's what will be enforced. While I don't doubt that there may very well be a restriction on abortion emanating from this decision, I'd wait until we had it in hand to evaluate it.
3. This is a very disturbing decision, and not just on the abortion issue.

If the talking heads are correct, the Court accepted, without review, the "factual findings" of a legislature. What that means is that the Court deferred all issues of fact to the legislative body. The consequence of this kind of deference would be:

1. Lopez: The Gun Free Schools Zones Act can now be re-enacted and found Constitutional by simply having Congress hold hearings and make factual findings that "guns in schools zones have an impact on interstate commerce."

Congress has broad, in practice virtually unlimited, power to regulate anything and everything that is in or affects interstate commerce. So now, any law Congress wants to pass they can simply by holding hearings and making findings that it affects interstate commerce. Well, not quite, there will be some statutes that will be held Unconstitutional, perhaps, because they conflict with other provisions of the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent, but still this is very troubling.

With this as precedent we could very well see, direct regulation of state and local education by the federal government, after all education can readily be found to have an impact on interstate commerce. Gun laws, health care, even local zoning issues are all up for grabs.

I know I sound alarmist, but the only case in the last 100 years where the Supreme Court balked at Congress' claim to regulate based on the Commerce Clause was the Lopez decision, and even it hinted that if Congress had made findings of fact that it might have been Constitutional. With this precedent, if it is as reported, there would be no doubt. It is also important to note that in this case, the finding of fact by the legislature was directly contrary to that of the expert testimony given.

Scary days are here again.

Cheers

 

[MikeMcK]

The public who truly educates themselves on abortion isn't horrified by it any more than any other medical procedure.

How many other medical procedures involve cutting a living little baby up into tiny pieces and sucking out the remains?

Just like anybody who bothers to educate themselves on the procedure knows that there's no such thing as a "partial birth abortion," and it's just a sensationalist word used by anti-aborts who don't know any better.

OK. How about this: "a woman carries a baby to full term, delivers the head, the doctor jams a pair of pliers into the skull and kills the baby abortion"?