Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FOX NEWS: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN
Fox News Channel ^ | 18 April 2007 | Fox News Channel

Posted on 04/18/2007 7:14:49 AM PDT by Spiff

Edited on 04/18/2007 8:48:59 AM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]

WASHINGTON — 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.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; bashrudy; bush; cultureoflife; duncandoughnuts; gop; helphillarywin; infanticide; pba; presidentbush; prolife; republicancongress; rudyisbad; scotus; slamonrudy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580 ... 921-933 next last
To: Mr. Silverback
Abortion was illegal (with criminal liability attached for those performing them) in every state until the 1960's. Up until then, the law made no distinction between a baby in the womb and a baby outside the womb.

That actually was't true until the post-civil war era; and even then most statutes differentiated between early-term and late-term abortions.

541 posted on 04/18/2007 10:50:36 AM PDT by jude24 (Seen in Beijing: "Shangri-La is in you mind, but your Buffalo is not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: TampaDude
That is not a good analogy. It’s not an issue of “environment”...it’s an issue of development. There's no developmental changes in the heartbeat it takes for a child within the womb to a child *outside* the womb. It's an environmental change.
542 posted on 04/18/2007 10:50:39 AM PDT by pillut48 (CJ in TX --Bible Thumper and Proud! RUN, FRED, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

Well done!


543 posted on 04/18/2007 10:51:32 AM PDT by scratcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Why do you hang out at Free Republic?

Maybe because I'm a conservative? There is more to being a conservative than just being a rabid anti-abortion activist.

Sadly, I have no doubt in my mind that many of you would vote for a Hugo Chavez clone if he was anti-abortion.

544 posted on 04/18/2007 10:52:04 AM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies]

To: ukie55

“No, Satan. See post 334”

Satan? Doesn’t he play Right Wing for the New York Islanders???


545 posted on 04/18/2007 10:52:34 AM PDT by TampaDude (If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the PROBLEM!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: jude24; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan

Sorry, but the preamble is changeable, and it has not been changed. As the purpose statement, the 14th amendment must be seen in the preamble’s light.

The preamble extends the blessings of liberty to our posterity. The 14th amendment does not specifically exclude the unborn, and since the preamble sees the future as present, and since they are anticipated citizens, then they cannot be deprived of life.


546 posted on 04/18/2007 10:52:40 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
And running a pro choice candidate will insure a DNC victory. Many keep voting for the GOP only because of small things like this. In most areas, hate to say, the GOP is as bad as the DNC.

Right now, the GOP stands for very little.

547 posted on 04/18/2007 10:52:56 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta

Apparently, you haven’t thoughtfully considered the issue.


548 posted on 04/18/2007 10:54:08 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: ivyleaguebrat
While it must be nice to have your answers readily available.. Some of us need to work out questions on our own to be satisfied

So how long have you been working out those questions? Are you any closer to an answer than you were when you started?

549 posted on 04/18/2007 10:54:43 AM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies]

To: ConstitutionandFreedom
Which part of the Constitution gives the Federal Government the right to pass abortion legislation ?

I trust this has already been addressed in this thread; but I would answer that it is the same constitutional authority that gave us Roe-v-Wade. And until that poorly made decision is consigned to the dust heap, these "band-aid" measures will continue to be necessary - IMO.

550 posted on 04/18/2007 10:54:45 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Abortion was illegal (with criminal liability attached for those performing them) in every state until the 1960's. Up until then, the law made no distinction between a baby in the womb and a baby outside the womb.

If the law made no distinction between a baby in the womb and a baby outside the womb then why was there the need for anti-abortion laws?

If the law treated them the same then the babies would be covered under existing homicide laws.

551 posted on 04/18/2007 10:55:49 AM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

FTR, the Ninth Circus is once again reversed.


552 posted on 04/18/2007 10:55:50 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Prevent Glo-Ball Warming ... turn out the sun when not in use)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pillut48

“There’s no developmental changes in the heartbeat it takes for a child within the womb to a child *outside* the womb. It’s an environmental change.”

We are not talking about the moment of birth, either...we are talking about the 24th week of pregnancy...please pay attention.


553 posted on 04/18/2007 10:55:54 AM PDT by TampaDude (If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the PROBLEM!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: deputac

We all should be “greedy” because Kennedy is wishy washy and will not vote with conservative SC members often. It will be hard if not impossible to get a real conservative on the SC with Rats in control of the senate.


554 posted on 04/18/2007 10:56:07 AM PDT by conservative blonde (Let's call the Jr. Senator from Illinois by his full name, Barack Hussein Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pillut48

I thought I knew the answer. I just had to hear it from someone else. That is quite......utterly insane.

So, in regard to partial birth abortion, getting a breathe of oxygen through the mouth, rather than the blood stream from the placenta, determines whether we can live, or die. Even though the baby is moving, sucking its thumb, and hiccuping. Hmmmmm...I do believe this world is going to end rather soon.


555 posted on 04/18/2007 10:56:16 AM PDT by Tulsa Ramjet ("If not now, when?" "Because it's judgment that defeats us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The 14th amendment does not specifically exclude the unborn
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Sure looks like the 14A (the only substantive law on the subject in the Constitution) is pretty well limited to citizens "born or naturalized in the United States."

You can try to argue from the Preamble, but never, ever has the Preamble been considered substantive law. As such, you are simply spinning your wheels.

556 posted on 04/18/2007 10:56:20 AM PDT by jude24 (Seen in Beijing: "Shangri-La is in you mind, but your Buffalo is not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: TampaDude
“We’re not talking about 3 year old children here...we’re talking about fetuses in the womb. Nice try”

First you say that environment has nothing to do with it,its about development.

Now you are back to environment because your first argument gets shot down.

You are going to spin yourself into the ground...lol

557 posted on 04/18/2007 10:56:29 AM PDT by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super Walmart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: scratcher

He just might live to 100 then.


558 posted on 04/18/2007 10:56:36 AM PDT by MinorityRepublican (Everyone that doesn't like what America and President Bush has done for Iraq can all go to HELL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: Spiff; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ..

Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

    `(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.

    `(b) As used in this section--

      `(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion--

        `(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and

"in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother." Or "in the case of breech presentation", the child should be killed before "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother". (Actual text of S.3 and HR 760 in quotes)

This  is not a ban. These are targeting coordinates, plain and simple giving instructions to the abortionists on how to do the procedure whether the navel is showing outside the body in a breech procedure and whether or not the fetal head is fully presented outside the body during a head-first presentation.   The abortionists are certainly not stupid. This will not even slow them down.   And will there be a federal official in each abortuary monitoring each PBA procedure?  Of course not, there is no way to enforce this so-called ban.   A law that only protects a child in the last ten seconds of a nine-month pregnancy is a total fraud. 

This is the reason why Judie Brown of the American Life League did NOT support this bill.   It's a fraud, plain and simple.   It is hard to imagine how anyone could even write a law that would provide fewer restrictions on the legal killing of a human being.  As such, it is highly unlikely that even one single child will be saved using the language of this "ban."   In addition, the health of the mother provision does not take into account that the PBA procedure is mostly a 2-day (sometimes a 3-day) procedure.   If a woman is supposedly dying because she is pregnant a C-section would save her, not a PBA.    There is NO reason why a mother would have to undergo the Partial Birth Abortion procedure except to kill her infant due to a selfish reason as a means of convenience.


559 posted on 04/18/2007 10:56:39 AM PDT by Coleus (Happy Easter, Jesus Christ is Risen, Hallelujah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood

please see my post 550


560 posted on 04/18/2007 10:56:57 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580 ... 921-933 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson