Posted on 04/19/2007 9:56:32 AM PDT by presidio9
Ever since Roe v. Wade in 1973, graphic descriptions of abortion have been staples of abortion opponents. Abortion rights advocates have preferred more scientific terms. Neither is by accident.
The Supreme Court adopted the more graphic approach Wednesday as a conservative majority of justices upheld a nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure.
"The way in which the fetus will be killed ... is of legitimate concern" to the government, the majority said.
In opinions after Roe v. Wade, the decision saying a woman has a constitutional right to abortion, clinical terminology has been the order of the day at the court.
All that changed in 2000, when Justice Anthony Kennedy described abortion procedures in painstaking detail. He did so as a dissenter in Stenberg v. Carhart, the ruling striking down Nebraska's ban on what opponents call partial-birth abortions.
"Repeated references to sources understandable only to a trained physician may obscure matters for persons not trained in medical terminology," Kennedy wrote in 2000. "Thus it seems necessary at the outset to set forth what may happen during an abortion."
Kennedy then explained abortion procedures in explicit terms that hadn't been seen previously at the court. The break with tradition prompted Justice John Paul Stevens to note in a concurring opinion, "Much ink is spilled today describing the gruesome nature of late-term abortion procedures."
Kennedy returned to form Wednesday when he wrote the decision of the court.
"It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns ... what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child," Kennedy wrote.
In a forceful dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that Kennedy's word-choice goes too far.
"Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label `abortion doctor,'" wrote Ginsburg. "A fetus is described as an 'unborn child,' and as a 'baby;' second-trimester, previability abortions are referred to as 'late-term.'"
Oh Geddy has some big old frames. I’ve seen RUSH many times.
“When is the unviable tissue mass due?”
“What sex is the unviable tissue mass?”
“What are you going to name the unviable tissue mass”
“The unviable tissue mass just kicked!”
“The unviable tissue mass is pressing on my bladder.”
I thought that was normal. Was I wrong?
< /sarcasm >
Republicans who voted for her should be lined up and shot.
That is how Superman maintained his secret identity.
Last time I saw teeth that ugly, the Brits were visiting...(chuckle)
There you go again, confusing the liberals with facts! /sarcasm
The next time a pro life lawyer argues in front of RBG he/she should ask the learned jurist what “her” understanding of a fetus is.
OK Ruthie- enlighten us- when does a fetus become a baby?
If a fetus is pulled or expelled out of the womb during an abortion (excuse the pejorative term) ... and draws breath or tries to as they do in mid 2d trimester and beyond- does it become a “baby”? Or does it retain the term “fetus” because it was not chosen by the “mother” (another potentially pejorative term if it violates the principle of maternal choice) to be a “baby”?
I think we taxpayers who pay for these abortions deserve the details.
Three years ago, my youngest was expecting her first. She started having problems, and had uremic poisoning.
It got to the point that another day would probably kill her.
The baby was three months early, and it was so critical that he was born Cesarean section on Christmas day.
He had to be in the ICU for three weeks, but both did fine.
The solution to a late term problem that endangers the mother's life is to deliver the baby.
There have been further advances in the last three years.
Sorry Ruth high-and-mighty Ginsburg...but the truth hurts doesn't it?
The fact that you have ruled in favor of this gruesome, barbaric, middle ages and/or Nazi-like horror for years is something you simply cannot allow your own mind to accept...but it is nonetheless true.
At the end of the day, I don’t give a crap what that inhuman freak Ruth thinks.
WE WON THE DAY!
You and your murderous buddies LOST Ruth. Take that and eat it raw!
Well now, we can't have that can we? Imagine the gall of someone referring to an unborn child as ... well ... an unborn child.
Thanks, Ms. Ginsburg, for admitting that the whole pro-death superstructure in America rests on the carefully crafted use of deceptive, sanitized, obscurantist terminology.
It seems pretty apparent that (at least to the Dhimmis) they aren’t humans until ruthie SAYS they’re humans.
What an evil woman!
The fact they said... how the “fetus” was “killed” should mean that at least they consider it alive. You can’t “kill” tissue.
I thought it was very provoking they admitted that in official documentation.
Smile Ruth, your mother didn’t abort you.
Confirmed 96-3 in the US Senate. Republicans who voted “Yes” included John McCain.
What the heck are you talking about?
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.