Judge: Bush Abortion Ban Unconstitutional

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
by David Kravets
(Associated Press)

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge Tuesday declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional, saying the measure infringes on a woman's right to choose.

The ruling applies to the nation's 900 or so Planned Parenthood clinics and their doctors, who perform roughly half of all abortions in the United States.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton's ruling came in one of three lawsuits challenging the legislation President Bush signed last year.

"The act poses an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion," she wrote.

Federal judges in New York and Nebraska also heard challenges to the law earlier this year but have yet to rule.

Planned Parenthood lawyer Beth Parker welcomed the ruling, saying it sends a "strong message" to Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Bush administration "that the government should not be intruding on very sensitive and private medical decisions."

Government attorneys did not immediately return calls for comment.

Bush signed the law in November, saying "a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth while the law looked the other way."

The law represented the first substantial federal legislation limiting a woman's right to choose an abortion, and abortion rights activists said it ran counter to three decades of Supreme Court precedent.

In the banned procedure — known as intact dilation and extraction to doctors, but called partial-birth abortion by opponents — the living fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed.

Justice Department attorneys argued that the procedure is inhumane, causes pain to the fetus and is never medically necessary.

Abortion proponents, however, argued that a woman's health during an abortion is more important than how the fetus is terminated, and that the banned method is often a safer solution that a conventional abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces.

The measure, which President Clinton had twice vetoed, was seen by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure from the Supreme Court's 1973 precedent in Roe v. Wade. It shifted the debate from a woman's right to choose and focused on the plight of the fetus.

Abortion advocates said the law was the government's first step toward outlawing abortion. Violating the law carries a two-year prison term.

Late last year, Hamilton, a Clinton appointee, and federal judges in New York and Lincoln, Neb., blocked the act from being enforced pending the outcome of the court challenges. They began hearing testimony March 29.

Doctors have construed the Supreme Court's decision in Roe. v. Wade to mean they can perform abortions usually until the 24th to 28th week after conception, or until the "point of viability," when a healthy fetus is thought to be able to survive outside the womb. Generally, abortions after the "point of viability" are performed only to preserve the mother's health.

Doctors at about 900 abortion clinics practice under the Planned Parenthood umbrella, performing about half the nation's 1.3 million annual abortions.



The Nebraska and New York cases are expected to conclude within weeks. The outcomes, which may conflict with one another, will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The New York case was brought by the National Abortion Federation, which represents nearly half the nation's abortion providers. The Nebraska case was brought by a few abortion doctors.

The U.S. Supreme Court had overturned a Nebraska partial-birth abortion law because it did not allow the banned procedure even when a doctor believes the method is the best way to preserve the woman's health.

To get around the decision, Congress simply declared that the procedure is never medically necessary — and during weeks of testimony, doctors testifying for the government stressed that same point — claiming that there are better alternatives to the method, and that it may even be harmful to women.

Witnesses for the abortion providers, however, testified in all three trials that the banned method is often preferred and sometimes necessary to preserve a woman's health.

Congressional sponsors said the ban would outlaw only 2,200 or so abortions a year. But abortion providers testified the banned method can happen even at times when doctors try to avoid it, such as when they attempt to remove the fetus from the womb in pieces.

Because of the possibility that the fetus may partially exit a woman during an otherwise legal procedure, abortion rights advocates said the law could ban almost all second-trimester abortions, which account for about 10 percent of all abortions in the United States.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
Ho hum, like this was unexpected. No matter what the pro-lifers say, these types of bans just aren't going to hold up in court. I am sure next year Santorum will try and create some new angle on it that will make it Constitutional and will probably have a court slap it right back in his face again.
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
Judge Phyllis Hamilton's decision is a victory for baby killers and Satan.

May that baby-genocide endorsing whore burn in hell.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
"Judge Phyllis Hamilton's decision is a victory for baby killers and Satan.

BAR: And who?

L: May that baby-genocide endorsing whore burn in hell.

BAR: I think the dash goes between genocide and endorsing, but it's tricky, I'll admit.
 

I'm still here Mo-fo's
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
8,359
Tokens
Landor, why would you not at least respect a woman's right to choose how she deals with her own body? Look I'm no fan of killing/abortion/death penalty, but now were talking right down the "gov't legislating morality" pipeline, IMO....and that makes me fairly uncomfortable.
I want to preface my remarks by saying I'm not judging your personal belief, just perhaps to engage your reasoning behind it.

_________________________
Sure could use a trim
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
Cuss'n,
I can see your point, but my whole premise is that this isn't about a woman's body - it's about the baby's body that she's murdering.

A woman ALWAYS has a choice regarding her body. If a woman made a choice to have sex and risk pregnancy then she already made her choice and IMO has no moral right to terminate another life because of her own selfishness.

If you got your ex pregnant and she decides to keep the baby do you get a choice to be a father? No, of course not - you're going to get nailed for child support (and rightfully so).

If you run somebody over while your drinking and driving do you get to call a mulligan?
Again, of course not - every other action in life warrants consequences.

It's a double standard excised by women seeking to avoid responsibility.

On the other hand - as much as it twists me morally, I support the choice to abort in cases of rape, incest and during a high health risk imposed on the mother.
 

I'm still here Mo-fo's
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
8,359
Tokens
Alright, fair enough. I respect your belief on this issue.
I myself think abortion should be nothing less than the last resort, those cases you alluded to; e.g. rape, incest, serious health risk for the mother.
I do believe there are a host of other alternatives that are unfortunately barely emphasized.
Having said this, I somehow feel deep inside that it is ultimately the woman who must decide, but those that do make this choice must be counseled and given every alternative to avoid this horror, because that is what it is...every woman I have known who had one of these done is scarred and profanely marred for life.

This may be the single most defining issue for many people when it comes to politcal ideology/party preference. And that in itself is a shame.

_________________________
Sure could use a trim
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Cussin, I'm sorry you've never met a woman who has terminated a pregnancy and remains mentally and spiritually healthy.

I know plenty of them.


It takes a woman who comes from a rational base to begin with, of course, but given intelligent, rational and compassionate counsel by friends and professionals, it's no more insurmountable than any other dramatic life event.
 

I'm still here Mo-fo's
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
8,359
Tokens
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume your post was of a patronizing slant.

I never said anything about not meeting those who have done it, only that I've only known a couple of women who have. Keyword was KNOWN, as in more than a casual basis.

Sure many traumatic events are certainly over-comable and the support base of the individual is a major element as is the stability of the individual.

I am pro-choice but would much prefer that people take responsibility for their actions and think of the consequences before they engage in risk-taking.

_________________________
Sure could use a trim
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
735
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Doctors have construed the Supreme Court's decision in Roe. v. Wade to mean they can perform abortions usually until the 24th to 28th week after conception, or until the "point of viability," when a healthy fetus is thought to be able to survive outside the womb. Generally, abortions after the "point of viability" are performed only to preserve the mother's health. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My problem with this opinion is that in 25 years maybe the kid can survive just 10 weeks from conception as technology advances. The line can't move based on medical breakthroughs. Years ago if your kid was a premie by a month some doctors would prepare you for the worst. Now it's fairly common with a high survival rate.

I wonder how these women would feel if their 60 year old mom came in the doctor's office and said that she wanted an abortion?
1036316054.gif
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
Cussin: women who have had abortions tend to never tell anyone except their closest female friends and perhaps their sisters. The father probably knew as well. So you likely do know women who have had an abortion who are not scarred for life, they just haven't told you.

Lander: On your double-standard talk, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I believe firmly that if a couple find themselves pregnant both should have an equal say in the final outcome. Now, that is not to say that a man can tell a woman to have an abortion or to not have an abortion, but I believe he should have a say in his decision to become a father. If he claims that, should he be in her shoes, he would abort and she is choosing not to, then they should come up with a legal agreement exempting him from child support payments but ALSO excluding him from any rights to the child. I think these agreements should exist for any unmarried couple even if they both intend to be parents. For married couples, I believe the woman can assume with some security that he would provide, and the man should not, in this case, have an 'opt-out' clause in the contract. This is the only case where I believe child-support should be mandatory.

I also have a personal issue with these late-term abortions that get so much press in the US. Barman has already pointed out to us the rarity of these procedures, so the fact that legislation is being written to ban them is pure rhetoric on Bush's part and is likely intended to take away abortion rights in their entirety. I personally would not abort after the first trimester as I morally, not scientifically, believe that the life inside me is too developed after that. But if defending late-term abortion ultimately means defending ALL abortion rights, then that is what the law will have to do. Unless the abortion debate calms down in your country, and the anti-choice people become the clear minority, you will not see ANY anti-abortion laws put in place. The slope is still too slippery for that.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Correct XP - so called PBA account for just over 2000 procedures annually out of about 850,000.

Oh, CUSSIN', please fade me, I most definitely did not intend to patronize above. It was a serious comment.

I think I understood both your initial comment and now your subsequent follow-up, and it's all good.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 25, 2000
Messages
4,257
Tokens
jointpleasures......you say you are for a woman's right to choose but you're against abortion?????

You are for a woman's right to choose what then?

Those two statements you made sorta contradict each other....could you explain???
icon_confused.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
585
Tokens
Oh Marco,

It's kinda like:

I'm for the troops.
I'm against the war.

Your right!! Your the winner!!!
 

I'm still here Mo-fo's
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
8,359
Tokens
Bar: for that pleasant response you get..................

a T-Shirt!
suomi.gif


_________________________
Sure could use a trim
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Ayuh, the hardest part of 'talking' online is lack of vocal emphasis can create incorrect perceptions of attitude.

I'll take an XL
toast.gif
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,241
Messages
13,565,816
Members
100,771
Latest member
Bronco87
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com