Louisiana Becomes First State to Ban Late-Term Abortions

FoxNews ^ | July 13th, 2007 | AP

[doc1019]

The ACLU will take care of this despicable situation. /S

[Always Right]

The new law allows so-called "partial birth"

Hmmm, wonder why they never say the so-called 'global warming'. Even Fox goes along with the left-wing spin.

[Sherman Logan]

Unlike in many developed countries, where abortion is considered a medical procedure beyond the reach of politics, it remains among the most politically sensitive subjects in the United States

The story somehow avoids telling us that procedures of this type are already banned in many of these "developed countries."

Most European countries, for instance, are much more restrictive of abortion than the US is.

In France, for instance, the abortion ratio (abortions per 1000 live births) is 275. In the US it's 341.

[Sherman Logan]

Sorry, US abortion ratio is 314, not 341. My keyboard has a hole in it.

[TxCopper]

And I don’t want to know why!

[Clintonfatigued]

The public is slowly turning against Roe vs. Wade.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

Thank God, and Louisiana!

[Regulator]

Odd that its referred to as the 'First State' to ban such a crime.

Before 1973, it was a crime in all 50 states.

[shield]

Typical loon media...besides, if it’d been any other state but Louisiana wonder if we’d even see this news.

[Western Civ 4ever]

Silly question: why was this necessary? There is already a federal law that was just successfully defended in the SCOTUS. Isn’t this redundant?

[Revel]

“The statute is parallel to a federal ban that President George W. Bush signed into law in 2003, which was upheld in April by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Question- If there is federal law against it then why do we need state laws?

[shield]

Exactly, my thoughts.

However, isn't there a doc in Kansas that has continued with partial birth abortions?

[Coleus]

.

[Sun]

bump!

[MHGinTN]

Tiller the Killer ... serial killer protected by the governor of the state.

[MHGinTN]

It my understanding that unless it is in the U.S. Constitution, federal law covers federal ‘estates’, reservations, military complexes, etc. A state may write a law which can be challenged for review of possible contradiction to the Constitution. Hence, when a ruling comes down that upholds a state law, it effects immediately only that state which had the review, and stops challenge to other states’ similar laws.

[spotbust1]

Finally, something coming out of LA that I can be proud of. (orig. from LA)

[shield]

Yes, I understand that. Wasn’t there a recent ruling that’s set him up for a world of hurt? Multi docs signing off on that procedure...life and death situation for Mom. He’s not been doing that....isn’t it now out of state hands?

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

Yes indeed!