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 ...
I doubt there's going to be any serious legal challenge to Roe v. Wade anytime soon. It's pretty much considered the law of the land in legal circles and stare decisis no matter how badly the Warren court ignored state's rights when creating a "right" that doesn't explicitly exist in the Constituion.
The partial birth abortion ban can be easily distinguished from Roe. Roe protects first trimester abortions, not those in the later stages. Partial birth abortions are more necessary as the pregnancy progresses into those later terms. States can regulate as a woman's pregnancy progresses under Roe v. Wade.
This ruling is going to open a whole new debate. Thank you, God.
Frankly, in order to get a majority, I almost hope Stevens dies of natural causes in the next six months or so.
Morbid, but we need something to happen here or I fear we won’t have a chance again.
It’s time we see “Little Jack” dance again ... at the White House.
Praise the Lord.
Excellent news!
Wonderful news!!!! Wow, something good for a change. Amazing! :o)
But it also gives the GOP the power to get a PRO LIFE Presidential candidate to the forefront (Fred, hint hint). The majority of people are against partial birth abortion anyway. I think this bodes well for conservatives.
Roe (and later Casey, et al) protects abortion throughout all 9 months.
I heard a discussion a few months back on NPR regarding the abortion votes on SCOTUS.
Amen.
I’m excited to get my hands on the opinion. This was a very interesting case because not only did it bring up the abortion question again in the Court, but there was also a pretty good federalism question here as far as this being a national ban goes. I am interested to see the Court’s rationale on the federalism angle as well as if there are any hints as to how the Court would go on a more expansive abortion ban.
Can we get some kind of link here, please?
Some pls do a DU check and kindly report in on the meltdown....
Thank you Jesus!
Which part of the Constitution gives the Federal Government the right to pass abortion legislation ?
Even Roe v. Wade says this, it just hasn’t been interpretted or applied in the way the decision was written. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree with the decision at all and am vehently pro-life. Just making a point about what it actually says.
And the judges get appointed by the president. I read something a few weeks back about research on the judicial appointments of chief executives....by large margins they share the political philosophy of the exec.
That should make it a simple thing to see.
If we want to lock the Supreme Court in for a long period of time, we must have this upcoming presidency. In the next 8 years, there are a number of changes that will take place on Scotus....some of those changes could well be CONSERVATIVE judges sick or retiring.
We must elect a consistent pro-lifer: Duncan, Thompson, other pro-life conservatives. The VP must also be pro-life.
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.