Skip to comments.FOX NEWS: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN
Posted on 04/18/2007 7:14:49 AM PDT by SpiffEdited on 04/18/2007 8:48:59 AM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON â€” 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 ...
Praise be to God. Hey, we’re trying down here Big Guy.
I've read that about two thousand partial-birth abortions are performed each year.
If they are inappropriate, they know who has done it.
The “personhood” of the unborn is not recognized in U.S. law so if the Court is to rule on that basis then U.S. law first needs to change in that regard.
FYI: This Macchiavellian ends-justify-the-means approach to the law inevitably turns around and bites you in the butt when it’s your pet issue on the other side of a ruling..
But I will grant you that the Supremes have so contorted the law in the past 40 years that this is all just tilting at windmills.
PS. A federal government that doesn’t have the power to tell the states to ban a procedure also doesn’t have the power to tell the states to un-ban a procedure...
THEIR our many of us who have been bashed been called Bushbots ect. I am proud to have been on the right side of this issue with My PRESIDENT.
I love President Bush, and continue to pray, support and encourage him. When the world is against him, he has always been strong and God will bless him and continue to bless our country with this type of decession.
To reiterate, Casey explicitly rejected the trimester framework. That’s no longer good law on the federal level.
Furthermore, it also changed the standard used for analyzing abortion laws from a stricter standard to the not-as-strict “undue burden” standard. The Court declined to overrule the central holding of Roe, but it did weaken it in that case.
I frankly don't hold out any hope that abortion will ever be outlawed anywhere in this country again. It's possible that if Roe v Wade is overturned, and it reverts back to the states, there will be states that will severely cut back the opportunity for abortion, but I think it will always be there, at least in the first trimester.
The best I can hope for is that it is limited to REPORTED rape and incest and in the event that the LIFE of the mother is threatened. That is where most folks in this country are right now with regards to abortion anyway. They don't want to seem hard hearted toward a woman in what they perceive as an impossible situation, and they don't like the idea of abortion as back up birth control.
Amen to that. This is where the rubber meets the roads when it comes to life issues. I am very please today that Al GVore/John Kerry is not our President.
And we MUST keep praying for him, and for another choice for the SC. It could turn the tide in this holocaust of the slaughter of the unborn.
Thanks to all the Republicans that made this happen.
this is why elections matter. we must win in ‘08 to continue the progress.
Hallelujia and amen.
I believe historically it came about when the Supreme Court found an overwhelming (and overwhelmingly vague!) federal "privacy" right in a birth control sale case. I forget the name of the case at the moment, but Roe depended on it.
The rationale (and the one Ron Paul used to vote for the ban when faced with the same quandry) is that the Supreme Court wrongly federalized the issue of abortion when it decided Roe v. Wade. Therefore, Congress has the right to legislate abortion law and pass laws and initiate legal action to lessen the scope and effect of Roe, only so long as that decision exists.
It’s worth noting that quite a few Democrats voted with the GOP on this one, too. It’s kinda funny how you don’t seem to hear much about that.
Will it be enforced?
Wonderful news indeed.
Any comments from RINO Rudy yet?
Bet he’s disappointed.
The Court said that it was upholding the law as written -- that is, its facial language. It said that the lawsuits challenging the law should not have been allowed in court "in the first instance." The proper way to make a challenge, if an abortion ban is claimed to harm a woman's right to abortion, is through as as-applied claim, Kennedy wrote. His opinion said that courts could consider such claims "in discrete and well-defined instances" where "a condition has or is likely to occur in which the procedure prohibited by the Act must be used."
I heard on the radio that Ginsburg, who wrote the dissent, called the decision "alarming." Does she post over at DU? ;-)
Good news. Bump for later analysis.
And in a reversal of all the 2006 talk, props to those who got out and voted in 2004 to keep John Kerry away from the decision to appoint these SCOTUS judges.
The 1st Infantry Division had a saying in the Second World War: “a step toward Rome is a step toward home”. This decision is a step.
“So much for the claim by some Rudy boosters that the President can’t impact abortion.”
He can, but ONLY if he has a Republican Congress. No way Bush could have got his nominees through a Democratic Senate. And unless a Republican candidate can win blue or purple states—which Rudy alone can do—there won’t be a Republican Senate. So think about it. Rudy has the potential to win big—and kick Reid and Pelosi off their thrones. No one else has this potential. And by the way, he has promised to nominate justices in the mold of Roberts and Alito, if elected. I believe him. And so does Ted Olson who supports him and who ought to know.
Here are some of the comments from DUmmyLand.
- "Nope, not good at all.And remember,t here is no such thing as a Partial Birth Abortion!"
- "I think it's just the beginning..."
- "You are exactly right. It is why the choice crowd fought this bill so hard. It is not a very far step to consider all abortions a "partial birth" abortion."
- "This is what you get with the likes of a John Roberts & Sam "Hirohito" Alitio on the court...Two more far right crackpots, who will always side with the far right on any social issue...The Supreme Court is one justice away from being the furthest right court in history, & that is a scary thought..."
- "So will women now have to die when there is a deceased fetus in their wombs? Since there is no such medical procedure as a partial birth abortion, and only Intact dilation and extraction which is often used to remove a dead fetus from the womb, how's that going to happen? Guess the conservative packing of the Supreme Court is working."
- "It's ok with them if women die, just not fetuses. I hate these people."
- "Very bad news. We need to double our work for reproductive rights."
- "American women have no one to blame but themselves for this loss. Many voted for Chimpy and should have realized that he only cares about women if they know their place and are "vessels" for men."
- "I wish I could say I was surprised but I'm not. This was always why 2000 was so important. This is how one man can do so much damage not just in the present, but for many decades to come. Perhaps forever. His cronies delivered for him, didn't they? Did anyone doubt they would?"
- "Here we go: the theocracy express has left the station."
Oh, you're more than welcome! Any time! :-)
Praise be to God.
At small step.
Nope. The Rudy Rooters on here seem pretty quiet too.
Wow. Kennedy didn’t bow to the culture of death. He’s in trouble w/them now.
I am such a total cynic from their previous long record of cowardice that I refuse to believe this is anything more than an aberration. Still I’m happy for the result.
Thanks again. I also just saw this from Justice Thomas’s concurrence via NRO: “I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it.” Which is pretty much what you said before: the federalism issue was not in “play” here.
Clinton vetoed the ban (which Rudy supported) and Bush signed it.
More so than Mayor Linguine D-ck, but less so than Ronaldus Magnus.
Libs.. need to take a step back. Look at the innocent lives we lost this week at Virginia Tech. They need to see we have to let go of the anger and turmoil and rejoice that these UNBORN have a fighting chance at LIFE.
You are either with us or against us. The bible says the seperation will be great and transparent in the end. We are seeing the seperation daily between good and bad. I would hate to be on the wrong side of this when it comes to JUDGEMENT DAY.
The Fourteenth Amendment, properly understood, prohibits States from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; and denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So, your question might be turned around: Where does the U.S. Constitution give the federal government the power to unleash anarchy and death upon whole class of persons by denying them the equal protection of the laws?
You know...I am happy about this decision...and I would have loved to join the thread...to celebrate with freepers.
BUT, that snarky comment ABOVE the article about Rudy...
ruins the whole thread.!!
NO THANK YOU!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
How long are you people going to keep spitting out that lie? You’ve already convinced the shallow end of the gene pool. You’re not winning any more converts. Time to find a new conservative-bashing lie.
When is it necessary and proper to crush the skull of a baby? Justice Ginsberg is a loon.
YES!!! A baby old enough to qualify for a partial birth abortion is old enough to qualify for the NICU. You don’t have to kill them if the pregnancy really, honestly needs to end.
What the demmies seem to not understand is that the last election’s results were NOT because people were voting FOR them—people were voting AGAINST the do-nothing Republicans!
Hopefully, conservatives have learned from their mistakes (and boy, was it a whopper!!!), and Fred et al will win in a landslide in 2008! :-)
I meant *butcher them* not just kill them.