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 ... 761-780781-800801-820 ... 921-933 next last
To: plain talk

So you don’t think Congress should follow any “rules” and just pass any legislation they want? I wonder if you’ll be saying that when Congress does their “job” and bans all guns. Who cares about that pesky little Second Amendment rule? I am nowhere near a libertarian but I have read the Constitution and understand the concept of federalism which is not a difficult one to grasp. Congress used the Commerce Clause to justify passing this legislation and that is wrong, just as the Court was wrong to strike down the ban in the Nebraska case (which they wouldn’t do now with Alito on the Court).


781 posted on 04/18/2007 6:19:22 PM PDT by bcbuster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 756 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Yes, Congress can write such a law.

And the Supreme Court can also decide, as a matter of constitutional law, that the “persons” protected by the Constitution are human beings, and that human beings come into existence at the time of conception and become persons.

And no, Congress could NOT pass a law (and have it stand) that said that persons under the age of 3 were not persons for the purposes of the Constitution. The Supreme Court would have the authority to strike down such a law.


782 posted on 04/18/2007 6:22:27 PM PDT by Vicomte13 (Le chien aboie; la caravane passe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: free_life
You will get it in Hillary Clinton.

You will get 10 of millions of more abortions.

That’s what you will get.

Rudy is a good man.

Apparently he’s just not good enough for those even faced with the choice of Hillary Clinton.

Bush 41 wasn’t good enough for Conservatives. The Bill Clinton Presidency gave us Ginsberg, Breyer, a gutted military and 9-11.

So as purists sit back and wade in their purity, leftists stab our troops in the back, sanction millions of abortions and tax us into infinity.

It must feel good to be pure. Just don’t open your eyes or unplug your ears and purity will bring you bliss.

783 posted on 04/18/2007 6:24:39 PM PDT by new yorker 77 (Speaker Pelosi - Three cheers for Amnesty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 777 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

Excellent news! One step closer to a better America.


784 posted on 04/18/2007 6:25:04 PM PDT by SeaBiscuit (God Bless America and FRiends. ...Hunter '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child; HitmanLV
Yes!!! This is why we need originalist judges in the Supreme Court - and this is one of the reasons I supported GW since his first campaign for the presidency. I voiced the reasons for my support here on FR while he was being called a coke-head, draft-dodger, and much worse by some.

God bless him and bless the Justices who voted to uphold the PBA ban.

785 posted on 04/18/2007 6:26:24 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul (If you think the world's dangerous, and you need a tough guy... that's me [Rudy] --Newt Gingrich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Correct


786 posted on 04/18/2007 6:27:22 PM PDT by Dahlseide (TULIP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: free_life

The rights of the unborn seem obvious once they pass a certain age. At some point the mother has given up her right to choose, because as the weeks go by and she hasn’t “chosen” the baby can and should—through a surrogate of course—make the choice and claim the legal right to do so. In other words, once time passes and no choice has been made, the baby, through his/her surrogate, can claim standing. Maybe even suing, a couple of months or so near the point of viability, for the right to pay room and board for the remaining time in the womb, especially if the mother has not made her choice known?


787 posted on 04/18/2007 6:31:23 PM PDT by KingLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 660 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

THANK YOU PRESIDENT BUSH!!!!! Wonderful news.


788 posted on 04/18/2007 6:31:27 PM PDT by baw0169
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
A great day. Alito and Roberts appear to be what was promised.

It is still a little painful to be celebrating the end of a most gruesome and cruel surgery. But this is a first step for us.

If only Bush gets a chance to appoint a replacement for Stevens.
789 posted on 04/18/2007 6:34:10 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservativegreatgrandma
This means the unborn child is a person, at least at a certain point.

No it doesn't mean that at all. It just means abortion commerce can be federally regulated as long as a woman's right to abortion is not unduly burdened (but we already knew that), and this law creates no such burden (the Court's saying as much is what's new here). In other words, the fact that the law won't stop a single abortion is pretty much why it was upheld. If the law actually interfered with women's abortion rights, it would have been struck down.

790 posted on 04/18/2007 6:34:54 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Hope!
791 posted on 04/18/2007 6:42:10 PM PDT by right-wingin_It
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul

I’m very pleased with the decision, also. The hysterics on the part of some dem politicians so far has been absurd, too. That’s good politically - it’s clear about 90%+ of Americans want to see this type of late term abortion stopped. Great decision!


792 posted on 04/18/2007 6:44:15 PM PDT by HitmanLV ("If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking until you do suck seed." - Jerry 'Curly' Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
I wouldn’t disagree with what you are saying.

I only wanted to point out that the Federal Government, as in SCOTUS, had no authority to create Roe v. Wade.

The right to life is an absolute God given inalienable right assured in numerous parts of the US Constitution.

793 posted on 04/18/2007 6:47:16 PM PDT by Milwaukee_Guy (Don't hit them between the eyes. Hit them right -in- the eyes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: HitmanLV
Great decision, indeed!

I'm really happy about this.

794 posted on 04/18/2007 6:48:00 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul (If you think the world's dangerous, and you need a tough guy... that's me [Rudy] --Newt Gingrich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul

Yes - the dem candidates have to stay in good favor with the nutty pro abortion crew, which is a very narrow corner of the electorate. Rudy doesn’t have that problem, and is the only pro abortion candidate with that luxury.


795 posted on 04/18/2007 6:49:26 PM PDT by HitmanLV ("If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking until you do suck seed." - Jerry 'Curly' Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 794 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77
Hillary, Rudy whats the diference they both support abortion?

We will nominate a Conservative and then work to get him elected. Rudy can't win anyway...too many Conservatives will never vote for him. Get off the Rudy machine and get involved with a Conservative that will give us a Conservative in the WH. There are two to choose from at this point IMHO - Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter.

796 posted on 04/18/2007 6:52:45 PM PDT by free_life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 783 | View Replies]

To: KingLiberty
At some point the mother has given up her right to choose

Like, after he pulls out?

797 posted on 04/18/2007 6:55:15 PM PDT by Jim Noble (But that's why they play the games)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: free_life
To compare Rudy to Hillary is moronic.

Also, while I’m not on the Rudy machine, I am also not selfish enough to not vote.

To not vote is unAmerican and selfish.

Any so-called conservative who does not vote is not a conservative.

Real Conservatives are not selfish people who stab our troops in the back by allowing an anti-military leftist to be commander-in-cheif.

Hillary is depending on the selfish to reward her with the Presidency.

Hopefully those who call themself conservative have not forgotten 9-11.

It’s tough to debate the selfish so-called conservative with selective amnesia.

Abortion is legal because of the selfish stay home so-called conservative.

798 posted on 04/18/2007 7:06:02 PM PDT by new yorker 77 (Speaker Pelosi - Three cheers for Amnesty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 796 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77

“Abortion is legal because of the selfish stay home so-called conservative.”

Well, gosh, I guess we COULD have stormed the Supreme Court building with pitchforks back in 1973...


799 posted on 04/18/2007 7:09:43 PM PDT by Vicomte13 (Le chien aboie; la caravane passe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
The plaintiff never addressed the Commerce Clause Sandy.

I know that. That's sort of my point. Conservatives should have been the ones making that point from the beginning, in which case this law would have never been passed. Unfortunately, Bush "conservatives" are no longer distinguishable from FDR liberals. I see you noticed Thomas has sort of invited a future commerce clause case. No surprise how that'll turn out, though. Left playing right and right playing left again, no doubt, unless conservatives come to their senses in the meantime. I'm not holding my breath though.

Those being killed are human beings

Right. And now they'll just be killed in a different manner. What a win.

One small step for mankind and all that.

Hardly. More like another large step for "conservative" big government and all that. I know you know that.

800 posted on 04/18/2007 7:09:53 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780781-800801-820 ... 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